Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: How can the US proclaim to be "the land of the free" if...

  1. #1 How can the US proclaim to be "the land of the free" if... 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    One thing I dont quiet understand about the US's founding values and current politics, is this:

    The US is the selfproclaimed "land of the free" and seem to value freedom very highly right? Ofcourse this is a benevolent and noble goal. Cant argue there!

    Yet in Mitt Romneys case I understand that he is AGAINST abortion and same-sex marriage.

    So basicly - Mitt Romney and the republicans atleast, thinks that women shouldnt have the freedom to decide over their own body. And two: People dont even have the freedom to marry those they love.

    I cant believe how americans can call themselves the land of the free IF they vote for Romney.

    Its pure and simple logic here that if you value freedom, you will allow self-decided abortion and same sex marriage - anything else would be extremely hypocritical.


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Study the US constitution, particularly the first 10 amendments - The Bill of Rights. Those are the rights that matter, and which tend to get violated in other countries more so than here. Not the stuff you are talking about, like the right to kill your unborn child.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Because its an Orwellian joke, the US has one of the largest PRISON population in the world.
    And they have the barbaric practice of Death Penalty, Torture, secret CIA prisons, a frequent flyer Torture-Outsourcing program, Wire Taping, gropping airport checkpoints, no Habeas Corpus, etc. To find another regime with such high levels of prisoners, with death penalty and so on you have to dig deep at the bottom of the barrel of industrialized countries.
    Last edited by icewendigo; October 5th, 2012 at 03:14 PM. Reason: added "the barbaric practice of" for added flavor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    So you seem to be talking mostly about freedom of choice (particularly with specific actions). Everything pertaining to the broadest legal freedoms goes back to the Bill of Rights, from our constitution. The only freedoms explicitly mentioned to my knowledge are freedom of speech, freedom of the press (media), and freedom of religion. The freedom to choose if you want abortion or not is different, and over-viewed in a different part of the Constitution.

    Of course, no statement in any context of law is or should be infinite in scope. If we just said "freedom of choice", does that mean we condone the freedom to murder? It's a popular notion that law of freedom holds precedence unless the actions enabled cause great harm to or infringe on the rights of others.
    Last edited by epidecus; October 5th, 2012 at 04:03 PM.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    So there should be no rules? People should be free to do whatever they want? If I want to driver on the left or the right of the road, that is my choice? I should be free to take other people's possessions or their lives? All laws are the state removing our freedoms?
    Raziell likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    @Harold: I guess abortion is a sensitive issue which is hard to discuss. A woman with a good economy and no excuse shouldnt be allowed to take an abortion imo. But what about rape victims or women that cant provide for the child dooming it to a life of extreme poverty and unhappiness from the time it is born?

    @Strange: I see your point. If freedom is taken to far and abused we have anarchy. The dosage makes the cure/poison I guess.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    So basicly - Mitt Romney and the republicans atleast, thinks that women shouldnt have the freedom to decide over their own body. And two: People dont even have the freedom to marry those they love.

    I cant believe how americans can call themselves the land of the free IF they vote for Romney.

    Its pure and simple logic here that if you value freedom, you will allow self-decided abortion and same sex marriage - anything else would be extremely hypocritical.
    The abortion question comes down to whether the unborn child is a person themselves or not.

    Remember the USA used to have slavery, right? Lincoln and the person he was running against (Douglas) once famously had a debate where they discussed whether not allowing the Southern states to "self determine" whether they wanted to continue to have slaves was an infringement on the idea of freedom. (Freedom for the Southern states to decide whether to stop having slavery or not).

    Lincoln's response was to say that of course it was not freedom they sought, but the power to deprive another person of freedom (the "right" to choose for a slave to make them a slave.)

    If unborn children are people, then letting the mother choose whether they will live or die is a similar question to that one which Lincoln and Douglas were debating.
    Giving the choice to the mother instead of the child would be like letting Southern slave owners make the choice about whether their slaves should have to remain slaves. We already know what the slaves would choose. And.... I think we can be pretty confident what the child would choose also.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The worst thing is, I'm actually very much in favor of abortion. I'm happy to see population control occur any way it can. I just don't see it as a freedom issue.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The abortion question comes down to whether the unborn child is a person themselves or not.
    I came across something today (serendipity rules!) about this.

    Note: There's no argument in the post itself, only a question. Some of the comments are directly about your point.

    Anti-Abortion Argument #4: Shouldn’t We Err on the Safe Side?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    @Harold: I guess abortion is a sensitive issue which is hard to discuss. A woman with a good economy and no excuse shouldnt be allowed to take an abortion imo. But what about rape victims or women that cant provide for the child dooming it to a life of extreme poverty and unhappiness from the time it is born?
    What exactly do you think Mitt Romney's position is on abortion? Mitt is a moderate if not leaning to the liberal side on this issue. I'm amazed at the caricature of Romney that the media have created.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I'm amazed at the caricature of Romney that the media have created.
    Yeah. I know a lot of people seem to have taken Ryan's position (undoubtedly extreme) on this topic and extended it to Romney.

    Romney would never go along with an extreme policy approach that disallows IVF. At least 2 of his grandchildren came along through IVF.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I'm amazed at the caricature of Romney that the media have created.
    Yeah. I know a lot of people seem to have taken Ryan's position (undoubtedly extreme) on this topic and extended it to Romney.

    Romney would never go along with an extreme policy approach that disallows IVF. At least 2 of his grandchildren came along through IVF.
    Obama is an extremist on the other side of the abortion issue.
    On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
    Barack Obama on Abortion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    For kojax. Poste 8. Abortion as a form of population control? I don't really believe you meant to poste that.

    When our Kangaroo population overspills the normal breeding cycles ( due mostly to good grass growing Seasons as we have had recently ) then the cry goes out to cull them. Issue an open season for two or three weeks, or licence Shooters under special dispensation to clear out certain areas where infestation is out of hand.

    With Humans we best start before the baby making process begins. Restrict marriage... no? Special licence to marry ...no? Special licence to have children ...no? Restrict the number of children to one only ...no?

    That leaves starvation and war.

    No, lets rely on The New form of Educational Carriculium for Boys and Girls that will be part of the New World Order when The people call upon this to happen. And they will. I have no doubt about that at all. It's just when, that's all.

    When Resources run out?

    When the population reaches 20 Billion?

    When Climate Change creates conditions demanding survival modes to kick in?

    In the meantime lets muddle along, filling in time. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post
    For kojax. Poste 8. Abortion as a form of population control? I don't really believe you meant to poste that.
    Partly I'm being realistic. Partly I'm trying to accommodate the loosest definitions of abortion. Some people consider the pill to be abortion. Others consider the "morning after pill" to be a form of abortion.

    I have no problem killing a fetus less than 3 weeks old because it doesn't really have a brain yet. If figure, no brain = no personality, feelings, or desires = no need for rights to protect any of those. Death itself holds no moral meaning to me, unless it violates a person's desire to live. If they have no desire to live, then I can't see how it would be wrong for them to die.

    Now, a 9 month old fetus, on the other hand,probably has formed some desires. It's safe to assume that the desire to live is among those desires.





    When our Kangaroo population overspills the normal breeding cycles ( due mostly to good grass growing Seasons as we have had recently ) then the cry goes out to cull them. Issue an open season for two or three weeks, or licence Shooters under special dispensation to clear out certain areas where infestation is out of hand.

    With Humans we best start before the baby making process begins. Restrict marriage... no? Special licence to marry ...no? Special licence to have children ...no? Restrict the number of children to one only ...no?
    I agree it's better to start before the need exists for an abortion in the first place. Restricting marriage would probably accomplish nothing. Kids would still get born outside of marriage.

    I would like to see the "license to have children" option come into existence, though. Not sure exactly how to enforce it. Maybe give every male a vasectomy? (not out of sexism, but because the male vasectomy is less invasive than the equivalent female sterilization process.) Allow it to be surgically undone if he gets a breeding license, until his wife or designated girl friend is pregnant?



    That leaves starvation and war.
    What!?!?!? How does it lead to that?

    No, lets rely on The New form of Educational Carriculium for Boys and Girls that will be part of the New World Order when The people call upon this to happen. And they will. I have no doubt about that at all. It's just when, that's all.

    When Resources run out?

    When the population reaches 20 Billion?

    When Climate Change creates conditions demanding survival modes to kick in?

    In the meantime lets muddle along, filling in time. westwind.
    You know what will happen when the population reaches 20 billion? The first world will close its borders, and go on living just as it did before.

    All the chaos (and most of the 20 billion people) will be in the third world where we first worlders don't have to know or care about it. ...... Exactly like it is now.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    @Harold: I guess abortion is a sensitive issue which is hard to discuss. A woman with a good economy and no excuse shouldnt be allowed to take an abortion imo. But what about rape victims or women that cant provide for the child dooming it to a life of extreme poverty and unhappiness from the time it is born?
    What exactly do you think Mitt Romney's position is on abortion? Mitt is a moderate if not leaning to the liberal side on this issue. I'm amazed at the caricature of Romney that the media have created.
    Mormon spiritual beliefs only allow abortion in the case of rape, or an extreme health risk. He might choose to break with his church on that, though.

    Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
    http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Its funny how you republicans speak so highly of the rights of unborn fetuses. Your against abortion because it kills unborn children.

    But what about the 40,000 Americans, that die horrible deaths each year, from not having health insurance.
    You republicans fight to (not) give them health insurance.

    These 40,000 Americans, suffer a much worse death than an aborted fetus.

    Why do you all care so much about a fetus, and not care about those 40,000 Americans, who suffer horrible deaths each year, from no health insurance?
    Last edited by chad; October 13th, 2012 at 01:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    One thing I dont quiet understand about the US's founding values and current politics, is this:

    The US is the selfproclaimed "land of the free" and seem to value freedom very highly right? Ofcourse this is a benevolent and noble goal. Cant argue there!

    Yet in Mitt Romneys case I understand that he is AGAINST abortion and same-sex marriage.

    So basicly - Mitt Romney and the republicans atleast, thinks that women shouldnt have the freedom to decide over their own body. And two: People dont even have the freedom to marry those they love.

    I cant believe how americans can call themselves the land of the free IF they vote for Romney.

    Its pure and simple logic here that if you value freedom, you will allow self-decided abortion and same sex marriage - anything else would be extremely hypocritical.


    America is not the land of the free, it is the land of corporate propaganda, and insane CEO leaders.

    Hear in America 1/2 of us get our political beliefs from Fox news and Rush radio, they are not real news broadcasts, but rather corporate propaganda groups. About 1/2 of Americans are victims of this propaganda. These news outlets are corporate propaganda groups, created by billionaires and large corporations, their only true role is to lower CEO's and large corporations tax rates. These propaganda groups also fight to abolish corporate regulations so large corporations can pollute ex.ex., and make more money.

    These propaganda groups tell their listeners/followers 1,000's of lies, and lots of communist and anti-science fantasy's, and their listeners/followers do not even care.


    Heres a few of the fantasy's these propaganda groups made the US republicans believe,

    These propaganda groups tell them, that all news sources besides Fox news and Rush radio, are involved in a communist plot, to turn America into communists. So now the listeners/followers only trust and believe the corporate propaganda groups like Fox news and Rush radio.

    They tell them that most US college professors, are involved in a communist conspiracy plot, to turn Americas college students into liberals, and then into communists.

    And they tell them that science can no longer be trusted (only the propaganda news outlets can be trusted, not science.)
    ex.ex.ex.ex.


    Heres a few of the lies these propaganda groups tell their listeners/followers,

    They lie and say tax cuts for the rich increase government revenues (to make tax cuts for billionaires look good)
    They lie and say global warming is not happening (so corporations like Exxon can make more money.)
    They lie and say the rich pay too much money in taxes (when billionaires pay 1/2 the tax rate of regular Americans.)
    They lie and say large US corporations pay too much money in taxes (when corporations like GE pay 0% in taxes.)
    The lie and say the US social security system is bankrupt (so SS gets privatized, and the Wall street billionaires can take $750 billion dollars of the US seniors retirement money.)
    They lie and say Americas democrats are the big spenders (when US republicans created Americas dangerous deficits and national debt.)
    ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    (Note: these propaganda groups hate the US democrats, because the democrats force Americas rich to pay their fair share in taxes.)



    But the most scary thing is, how these propaganda groups made their listeners/followers, not care about regular Americans, and only care about the super rich.

    They want billionaires to pay 17% of their income in taxes, and Americans who make $75,000 a year to pay 30%+ of their income in taxes.
    They fight to kill 40,000 Americans each year by not giving them health insurance (because the billionaires who own the insurance companies want it that way.)
    Lots of Americans children do not get enough food to eat, and US republicans fight to (not) feed them.
    They want to end welfare, so even more US children will go hungry.
    ex.ex.ex.ex.

    The want to abolish class action law suits, so only rich Americans will be able to use Americas federal courts. (They want to stop poor people, from being able to sue rich people in US federal courts.)
    They are against poor people being able to have unions, so these unions can not bother their (billionaire bosses.)
    ex.ex.ex.ex.

    And they like to say "the rich made all the right choices."
    When I talk to avid listeners/ followers about these things above, they tell me "what do you have against the rich?"



    Most of the things that US republican politicians say, are ideas/phrases that were created inside of corporate think tanks. US republican politicians are only there to lower rich peoples taxes. If you believe US republican politicians, are real/true politicians, its like someone who believes Harry Potter is a real life story that actually happened.

    Romney is a CEO leader in this group, he gets his 17% tax rate, and he knows damn well what he is doing.


    I greatly fear this propaganda group spreading to other countries besides America.



    Another insane thing thing they are trying to do is this,

    A group of greedy US billionaires is tired of the American, IRS, EPA, FDA, FBI, FCC, ex.ex.ex. bothering their corporations.
    So what do these billionaires do? They get their think tanks to create ideas to abolish these government agencies, and huge numbers of regular Americans are joining these billionaires, in a fight to abolish the agencies (that keep Americans safe.)

    The insane thing is these billionaires also want to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, ex.ex.ex. and these regular Americans are joining the billionaires for this as well.

    Basically they want to abolish every US government agency, that is not needed by greedy billionaires.

    But billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are (not) involved in these propaganda groups.



    I just hope these corporate propaganda groups do not spread out of America !!!!
    Last edited by chad; October 13th, 2012 at 07:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    women shouldnt have the freedom to decide over their own body.
    An unborn fetus is not an American citizen. To put the rights of a cluster of cells or even a developing fetus ahead of the rights of the mother (assuming she's an American citizen) is a logical misstep. Abortion is horrible, no one I have ever met disagrees with that. The solution is birth control, not forced delivery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    And two: People dont even have the freedom to marry those they love.
    Telling two consenting adults (key terms, very important) that they cannot take part in a ceremony which is denied to them purely on the basis of sex is rather shameful. Drawing laws based on sex is always sketchy ground, but when that law prevents something that, when allowed, does not endanger anyone in any way is another logical misstep.

    There are strong Christian undertones to both of these debates. Unfortunately, we are quick to deny people rights when we believe religion should trump personal freedom.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What about "Free Energy" machines?
    By dapifo in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 19th, 2012, 04:47 PM
  2. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  3. the united states and the "free riders"
    By aboud7 in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 4th, 2010, 10:02 PM
  4. Planets and "Free-floaters"
    By John M in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 19th, 2010, 09:43 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •