Hank Price said:

 

Tracy,

As one of the "conservatives of the times" I can honestly say that every thing on your list has never been "hard-fought against" by me.

Wondering, other than being a dupe of the left-wing spin machine, do you have any facts to back up your incredibly stupid post?

Hank

 

TRACY said:

 

Hank, I don't have time for your BS today.
I'm incredibly stupid, and you're a genius, patriot, and everything good and great. (self-appointed)
You win.
Congradulations.

 

im1096 said:

 

Speaking of incredibly stupid posts, Hank ...

Assuming that you were an adult when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, you must be well over 105 years old now. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are seriously impaired.

To be a "conservative of the times," means that you were a conservative who was politically involved during the time period when the causes that Tracy mentioned were fought for and won. I don't believe that could possibly be true of you, Hank.

 

Nathan said:

 

Tracy,

It was a legitimate question. What do you have to back up your assertions that "Conservatives of the Times" didn't support those things?

Are you intentionally trying to confuse the political term of Conservative used today with that of the dictionary term whom is merely opposed to change?

There is a difference.

Besides, it was the Republicans whom supported civil rights and the GOP under Lincoln who freed the slaves.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

"What good things do we fight for right now that will be on this list someday?"
-----------------------------------------

I hope some meaningful education reform will join the list. We can call it No Child Left Behind which is a catchy name and should be a goal. But it won't resemble what bears that name today. Changes and refinements are already happening. We must get back to teaching our children how to think, how to use resources, how to communicate solutions. When our teachers have time to do more than teach to the test we'll make progress. We won't ever see all children achieve 100% proficiency using a single measure. What we can hope for is that each student has a chance of reaching their individual potential. That way we'll have doctors and ditch diggers -- both honorable jobs needed in our world.

Another that WILL join the list is cures and treatments from ALL kinds of stem cell research.

Safer borders. Using a fraction of the manpower and resources currently used to wage war we could really make America safer.

A blanced budget. Americans must demand financial accountability. I used to think this was being conservative. I would like to see us get away from terms and labels that have taken on new meanings and back to original definitions of words like conservative. Then take that old word and its old definition and take back our financial reins.

States rights. Our federal government has been grown into a monster. States need to take back what was meant to be theirs and reduce the bureaucracy that is both costly and ineffective. (Didn't this used to be considered "conservative" too?)

That's my contribution for now. I really hope we can move past where we are and get on with solutions to the many problems our country needs to address.

 

im1096 said:

 

Linda, I agree with all that you mentioned, but the thing that concerns my RIGHT NOW that I hope we are able to fight for and get back is our personal right to privacy. With phone companies illegally turning all of their records over to the government, and people arbitrarily being put on no-fly lists, we are on the verge of becoming everything Orwell warned us about in "1984." Once that has happened, all of the issues that you mentioned will be moot.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I agree im. I think people more concerned with the common good and less concerned with scaring us into submission will take care of overturning much of the really bad legislation we've seen come about in the past few years. That Patriot Act has to go! I also hope someone really smart is looking at all those "signing statements" so they can be set right also. I don't want anyone to have the powers bushco have given the legislative branch. But a new day is coming! Remember after Carter when democrats had little chance of being elected? The tides have turned. Bush has done wonders for the Democratic party! We couldn't have asked for a better ambassador!

 

Nathan said:

 

Linda,

Which part of The Patriot Act has to go?

You do realize that only a couple of parts in it are what has caused all the hate and discontent amoungst liberals?

Even those parts I will argue do not harm our personal privacy rights.

The Patriot Act is the key legislation in giving our different law enforcement agencies the ability to work together to help prevent crucial information from falling through the cracks.

You do remember 9-11 don't you?

 

Nathan said:

 

IM,

What privacy have you lost?

Let me help you out here... None.

 

im1096 said:

 

Nathan, people who are brainwashed seldom are able to realize what has happened and often fall back to using scare tactics to try to control others. That is what I believe has happened to you.

That you aren't able to see what personal rights Americans have lost proves the depths to which you have allowed yourself to be controlled by others. I'm concerned that there are many, many people in America today who, like yourself, aren't able to think independently and are willing to blindly follow the party line. Fortunately, I believe that there are still enough independent thinkers who have survived the neo-con brain-wash scam that there is hope for America to become that which she once was.

I once had time to explain to people who think like you where they lost the ability to think for themselves, but lately I have found it necessary to work two - and sometimes three - jobs in order to survive. I'm going to work now, but will continue to hope for your awakening.

 

gweltha.wkcsc said:

 

Tracy- I'd like to see something abut banning cell phone use while driving, and requiring Wichita drivers to use their turn signals. What an optimistic thought!

 

WSClark said:

 

Perhaps the most puzzling thing to be regarding the other side, is why they so vehemently hate 51 percent of the population? I just don't get it.

I admit that I have grown to despise a goodly portion of the right, but that is in RESPONSE to their attacks.

I also do not understand the lie factor. Just as an example: on the OTHER blog this morning, a poster that shall remain nameless, claimed that Mark Foley had only been a Republican for one term, before that he was a Democrat, the implication being that Foley was part of the immoral Democratic Party.

Mark Foley was elected in 1994 to Congress as a Republican - he has ALWAYS been a member of the GOP.

What was curious was that no one challenged the statement from the right - it was only further down thread that the point was corrected.

It is similar to the Nancy Pelosi Syria issue. I hear repeated condemnation of their trip from the right, while completely ignoring the fact that five Republican Congresscritters had visited Damascus just a few days earlier.

I just don't get it.....

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

We don't hate 51% of the population let alonge you.

I don't know much of anything about the history of Mark Foley and that claim is not made on any national level. So it is hardly an indicator of anything about the Republicans on a national level.

Unlike most of what is posted here by the left which is cut and paste straight from moveon.org or the DNC website.

 

WSClark said:

 

You missed one major accomplishment of the liberals - a woman's right to choose. Prior to 1972, abortion was a back alley proposition. While I personally dislike abortion, if it is going to happen, it needs to be safe and respectful.

The right can "protest" all they want, abortion needs to be legal.

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

That is like saying cashiers have to give money to people who come in and demand it so that armed robbery is not a dangerous proposition for those so desperate for money.

Either abortion kills a life worthy of protecting or it doesn't.

If it doesn't then you don't need any excuses for your actions.

If it does, then it should be the job of the Supreme Court to uphold protections on life.

Unfortunately, if you read the decision from the courts in Roe V Wade you would see that the court basically said that they don't know if it is a life or not so oh well.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I would worry about you if you could "GET" anything like that.

I'll bet you didn't "get" the POTUS and Congress returning to Washington to vote AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL about whether or not a feeding tube could be removed.

I'll bet you don't "get" how much the tax cuts have helped every American.

You don't "get" all those appointees who are doing a heckuva good job either, do you?

Or how well our economy is doing.



I'm glad you can't be so easily manipulated.

Here's a site that has kept track of some of Bush's "accomplishments."
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/accomplish1...

 

Danny said:

 

IM,

While not strictly conservative or liberal myself, I am conservative on some issues, liberal on some issues. So I truly do attempt to see both sides of every issue presented to me.

However, I found troublesome the use of the term brainwashed. The danger in that word is its readiness to be applied to any situation in which one disagrees with someone.

For instance, I want to understand more about why experts think or believe global warming is occuring. Left to itself, this particular statement could be an indication that I don't care about the environment and there for brainwashed into believing that global warming and/or climate change isn't occuring and thus not doing anything about it to help slow its progress or stop it.

However, what you do not get from that statement is the following:
1. I use the nifty lower power light bulbs
2. I have a low emissions vehicle
3. I live in an apartment and still went ahead and insulated the hot water heater.

What one would fail to see, is I take the more appropriate cautious choice in this case. Meaning, it seems likely that global warming is happening, so while I'm taking the time to understand the data, but don't necessarily say what actions I'm taking in the mean time, I am assumed to be both "brainwashed" and "environmentally hostile."

The real issue here, is we all have an opinion, likely nobody is brainwashed. Possibly we don't get the proper emotion in text that each of us conveys, so therefore we readers often then may take things personally that were never meant as such. So it is why I try my best to make sure I stick right on the issue and keep personal attacks out of it.

 

WSClark said:

 

The Terry Schiavo case certainly flies in the face of the "conservative smaller government" argument, doesn't it Linda.

What I thought was noteworthy, was after she died and the autopsy was performed that should without a doubt that she was blind and brain dead, you never heard ONE of the wingnuts that had made such an issue of it come out and say that they had been wrong.

Not one. Not Tom "She is lucid" DeLay. Not Bill "I diagnose from 1500 miles away" Frist. Not Sweaty Dennis "Culture of Life" Hastert.

It was all about pandering to the Religious Right.

 

Danny said:

 

WS,

While part of me understands parents not wanting to lose a child, this should never have been a political issue ever. As a result, this turned me off of politics that much more. Politics didn't belong in this and should have stayed out.

This seemed like an issue that should have remained private between her parents and her husband. End of story. Courts possibly, politics no.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Danny, once she was married, her parents lost all legal rights to a "say" in this matter. Tough on her parents, I fully agree; but such is the nature of Anglo-American common law.

 

Danny said:

 

VT,

Thats what I thought, wasn't 100% positive on it. Basically as such, it should have remained private, end of story.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Danny, I'm glad you're doing your part. I am terribly guilty of NOT doing everything I should to protect our environment -- NO MATTER who/what is responsible, NO MATTER what is happening and at what rate, and any of the other arguments. I don't recycle. My kids and grandkids kindly ask me why. They set good examples; I just ignore them. I don't have any reason. I'm just too lazy. You just inspired me. I am going to make greater efforts. It really is important, isn't it? All the arguments and disagreements don't change the fact that we need to take care of our planet. I'll start TODAY being a better custodian and doing my part.

This subject shouldn't have anything to do with politics. I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around to people of every political persuasion. I wish several topics didn't seem like we're choosing sides. Silly of us, huh!?

 

tracyaphillips said:

 

Hank & Pup, I don't have time to do a synopsis of the history of conservative politics in America, which is what you want (facts).
Sorry.
If you wanna be right, go ahead.
Nobody is gonna stop ya'.

One guick question though.
Since I'm so incredibly stupid, why would you wanna argue with me, or have me 'present facts', or even address me here?
Are you that insensitive that you pick on stupid folks like me?
That's not nice.

You've already shown how you feel about disabled folks. Now idiots like me?
That's mean.

 

Danny said:

 

Linda,

You know I agree with you there. Though, I think, there are some issues where sides are going to occur. Regardless, it is just the nature of some of those issues, but environment, the only issue is how much does it cost us? Light bulbs, when they last longer well not much. Most of the environmental costs are one time. Sure somethings are going to be more costly that others, but a little bit is a little bit and if everyone did a little bit, those little bits and pieces begin to add up. It's my thought, so even if global warming isn't happening, then yay, I spend less money on electricity. I'm happy that way.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I do use those funny looking bulbs where I can. I have several recessed light fixtures that are totally enclosed and those bulbs aren't supposed to be used there (according to the packages anyway).

I do the energy saving things I can in our home -- to save me money on the energy costs. In fact, we're getting new windows this year. Our furnace A/C is new and very energy efficient. We're adequately (or better) insulated.

One of our autos is newer and efficient; the other is old and a gas guzzler. The only redeeming factor is unlike the law every man knows (the woman always drives the nicer car) my hubby who still works and drives across town daily takes the Saturn and leaves the old Ford Explorer for my trips to lunch with friends and do the shopping...

BUT, I throw away my newspapers and aluminum cans and glass containers. In the regular trash. Last night my son-in-law saw me throw away a glass jar and volunteered to take my stuff to the recycling place when he takes his. All I need to do is take off the label, rinse them and put them in a different place than the weekly trash. I can do that!

 

Danny said:

 

Linda,

Yup I found most of the things to be relatively painless. Things that also generally pay for themselves(like windows) are worth it anyway on a more individual level.

So like I said, it seems global warming is happening, it seems likely it is cause by man, but even if not, man certainly with greenhouse gases contributes something to it, so if I can slow what might be man or might be nature down, then ok. Not a big deal.

If in the long run we find that GW wasn't happening, then it really didn't hurt me to invest in things that save on energy costs? In my opinion, no. So if for no other reason, I've generally just done things that help me.

All,

Gas prices. I'm sorry this is one issue that I don't really see why they are so high. Ok, standard answer is staving off a fuel/gasoline shortage. My question, do any of us drive less than we have when they were lower? Or do we buy less of other things we may have bought more of at other times?

I don't drive any less than I did prior to gas prices sky rocketing, so to me, the theory then that we are staving off a shortage is complete BS. Ok, those that I talk to on a regular basis state the same, they don't drive less. So if aren't driving less, then ultimately could it not be said that oil prices are hurting our economy? Would the economy begin to thrive again, if oil prices were brought down? Or should wages increase to counter oil prices, and by default other items of necessity going up in price also, which in turn may cause things to go up further in price also?

I'm not an economist, so I don't really know the answers to some of these questions, however it would seem to me that our dependence on oil coupled with the relatively few competitors in the oil field leads to the consumer being raped for no good reason.

Now I do need to get this out of the way. I've not researched any of the claims made above, I don't know the validity of the questions I asked. What I do know, is that I pay more for one item, means I am now less likely to buy something else. Which means that in the long run the economy suffers. So does the economy suffer at the hands of the oil empire?

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Danny, not going to get into any bloviating here; yes, artificially high gasoline prices resulting from speculation in oil futures (and spot pricing of oil) can have a negative effect on the economy (think inflation). In addition to the obvious "more spent on gasoline, less to spend on other goods and services", there is the effect on prices of other consumer items resulting from higher transportation costs due to increased petroleum prices, all of which has an inflationary effect.

I, too, do not drive less than before; my employment and other commitments have prevented me from so doing. However, I'm taking a look at doing so, if for no other reason the effect the higher prices are having on my personal fiscal health.

 

Danny said:

 

VT,

I think myself may end up being included in that. Though, I don't know exactly where I'll cut, other than visiting my in-laws and my parents. I don't really drive much more than to grocery shopping when we are planning on getting a weeks worth of groceries and I can't carry all of that on my bike.

So, I'm going to have to read then a little bit about how oil futures affect our current prices? Well, tonight after running, oil prices and how they are determined. LOL I think I'm going to have a headache.

 

Nathan said:

 

Tracy,

You start a thread on the premise that conservatives have been against some major things in our countries history.

You were trying to imply something about conservatives which is not true.

So you sit here acting all indignant that we would disagree with you and pretend like you were just having some harmless conversation and my father and I are the wackos for getting on you about it?

What a sad joke.

 

Wendy said:

 

Nathan,

I would say the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that those statements are not true. And I did not infer from Tracy's statement that the CURRENT conservatives were against these actions, but rather the conservatives of those times were. You were the ones that made this about current conservatives as far as the listed items are concerned. The only thing Tracy made about current conservatives is what is going on today - and we all know that conservatives have already taken stances against things like stem-cell research, an item already mentioned here...

 

Nathan said:

 

When she said "Conservatives of the times" it implied that this is the history of conservatives.

Which we take issue with then and now.

I already took the time to show how she was wrong on Slavery and Civil rights.

Either way, the burden of proof is not on me. The person presenting the argument must first provide the support for it not those who are against it.

That is taught in any entry level logic, argument, or debate class.

I would like to know what her facts are so that I may argue against them.

Right now I would simply be arguing against some random statement which I have no idea how she formed her conclusions to make.

 

Danny said:

 

Wendy,

It is true and false about what you say about stem cell research. By stating that conservatives are against stem-cell research brings all forms of stem cell research under one umbrella. It is true that I am against ESC, which is different from USC, and ASC research.

Likely, conservatives aren't against all three forms of SC research. Like myself, they probably only question ESC research. Linda, has brought up a good question, if the embryo is going to be destroyed anyway then why not? I've not yet been able to answer that question.

 

Nathan said:

 

Danny,

I think the reason why, or at least why I oppose it even though it is going to be destroyed, is because we were against the reason for it being destroyed in the first place.

 

WSClark said:

 

Trace, I don't think you're going to get a lot of sympathy from THAT side for stupid or disabled......

In fact, I don't see anything resembling compassion from THAT side.

 

Nathan said:

 

*cue up the violins*

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Good to see you at Wichita Voice Wendy. Hope you come back often.

I took this thread to be exactly what you did. A listing of things from the past. Upthread IM pointed out one that was ratified in 1920. ;-)

Then Tracy asked us a question in his original post. I responded to his question by listing a few things I would like to see added to the list that are topics the more liberal are fighting for today that are being opposed by the current so-called conservative leadership.

Danny, I was careful to list ALL kinds of stem cell research in my list. We increase our chances for cures and treatments when we research all types IMO. Of course, you and I have had this conversation many times and on some of it have pleasantly agreed to disagree.

The list does include topics which were all hard-fought by the conservatives of each topics times. Tracy used those as background for his question he hoped would spur discussion. And it did!

Some people no matter their political leanings see some topics as more than black and white and it's the shades of gray where many of my beliefs and opinions fall. I can tell you I am MUCH more financially conservative than the current POTUS.

 

WSClark said:

 

I forgot, Tracy, they are all about compassion if you are yet to be born. They are even compassionate if you are just a blastocyst.

Their compassion ends when you draw the first breath.

Perhaps you can just pretend to be a clumps of cells, Tracy.

 

Danny said:

 

WS,

I think I missed something up there.

Tracy,

Bah. Stupid, dumb, disabled. These are nonsensical reasons for refuting a statement by anybody. They are meant to attack the person, and not the argument. If I ever employ those tactics I hope someone will just ream me a big one, because I'm more about the idea(s) of the argument, than about who presented them and that persons background. We have opinions and ideas, sharing these and building on them supporting or refuting them is what is necessary to debate topics when opinions and ideas conflict with each other. So, while not sympathy in the strictest sense, I hope it conveys what I think a little more clearly.

Nathan,

Maybe that is ultimately what I'm against, the act preceeding the choice of how to destroy the embryo. Perhaps I am more against in vitro fertilization, than I think I am. I'm going to have to think about this for a while.

All,

I was writing alot more here about why I hold the views I have. However, I decided against it, as it would be one of those dramatically heavy topics. ;) I'm not saying it was bad, it wasn't just not going to say much about it. It was my view on how I see some topics.

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

Why do you say that we stop caring after the child is born?

I know just about every church I have ever been a member of goes to great lengths to help women care for their children if they are unable.

There are people who are willing to adopt that are having to go to china to get a kid right now.

So I don't get where you are drawing your conclusions from.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Danny, I wish you wouldn't feel that way. You have never called anyone stupid, or even their opinions stupid. You have always been courteous and respectful of each person's right to form their opinions. This is as much your board as any other posters and you should never pause when you wish to express your thoughts. You know if we disagree we'll state that we do and why. ;-)

You are NOW getting to the crux of something that is there legally and thrown in the trash. So if you truly care about not destroying what you believe is life you are on the right track by backing up. It has to be about destroying it not about how it is destroyed. Or, you have other areas of your beliefs to examine. All I've ever said is use what is thrown in the trash for medical research. That's all bill passed by both houses said. The president's veto didn't make any sense. But many didn't realize what the bill said and what the bill funded. So those people thought the president was protecting life. When you throw it in the trash it isn't protected. I know you agree with that. I think you are on the right track with your thoughts and beliefs. I respect that!

I know for sure if there is anything on my body worthwhile when I leave I want it used. I'm kinda doubting there will be anything useful...

I have a meat loaf ready to come out of the oven. I'll see you all tomorrow. Sometimes I have a bit of energy after dinner, but not too often.

 

Danny said:

 

Linda,

I know you did, it is why I didn't say anything about it there. Perhaps one day all of our conversations here are going to be mute points of some history book. Who knows.

I may put my long typed out thing that I mentioned earlier here on my own spot blog. Haven't decided yet. Don't really want to lose what I typed as it reveals what I was thinking at the time. So I cut it out and emailed it to myself. I do that quite often actually. I guess I'm weird that way or something I don't know.

WS,

My dad and mom are two the the staunchest conservatives I know. Both of them volunteer helping out the poor as best they can. My dad with his bad hip however, can not do some of what he used to do, but he does donate his time to meals on wheels, and my mom donates her time to helping single mothers.

My mom started donating her time to helping single mothers, after one of my sisters had three kids outside of wedlock. It opened her eyes to some of what happens. She is still against abortion for instance, but to help in alleviating on preventing it she helps single moms out. My sister is since married now(to the same guy that fathered the previous three mentioned children), but if it weren't for that, my mom may have still been blind to one of the reasons abortions are sought. That is her way of protesting abortion by helping those who aren't sure what to do with when they have children unexpectedly like that.

It is these types of things I think need to happen to address abortion, and other issues that (I know for sure me) have issues with, and that stems from where I think life begins.

 

WSClark said:

 

Danny, just know that there is a history between my friend Tracy and the Prices..........


Leave it at that.

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

There is a history all right. A completely misconstrued one.

 

WSClark said:

 

Danny, I know that there are conservatives out there that are VERY compassionate. My late mother was quite conservative but spent most of her life, even as she was dying of cancer, helping others.

I have no doubt of your sincerity or that of your parents. You and they should be applauded.

I would be the first to applaud.

There are others, however, that do not share your compassion. My comments were directed at those people.

And as I noted above, there is a history....

 

Nathan said:

 

Linda,

By supporting the study of what we believe to be illegitmately killed remains we are indirectly supporting the killing of those unborn humans.

That is why.

It is kind of like saying that Hitler was going to kill the Jews anyway so we might as well have supported his medical studies on them...

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

This is a perfect time for you to explain why or show your supporting evidence to back up your claims.

You have been given two contradictory pieces of evidence to your claim.

Feel free to defend it.

 

Danny said:

 

WS,

Some days I just feel like I'm much to young to really see everything wrong in the world, much less know how to fix everything in it. Yet some days I feel like my cross is to try. I don't know if this is the bane of the perfectionist, genius, religious, scientist, programmer, or what in me.

Sometimes I find the things I used to find enjoyable and really loved to do get dwarfed by the feeling that there is something more that I could do. Yet I don't have a clue what it is much less how to solve that which I don't what it is. It's like deep inside I'm searching for something that isn't there, or it is but I've not found it yet.

You know while it maybe the case I don't agree with everything everyone says, I'll admit even if I don't if nothing else, I've read alot more about subjects I can claim I still know nothing about. So I suppose good comes from everywhere, its just a matter of when or how.

 

WSClark52 said:

 

"Some days I just feel like I'm much to young to really see everything wrong in the world"

Be thankful for that fact, Danny. Please, and I am being very serious when I say that.

I will be 55 in June - it is my goal to do my part to leave the world in the best possible condition when I depart.

I want that for my three children and two (so far) grandchildren.

Good luck to you, young man! I wish you the best, with all sincerity.

 

Predestined said:

 

"There are people who are willing to adopt that are having to go to china to get a kid right now."

Nathan,

That is not a wholly truthful statement. Even before abortion was made legal, there was a shortage of babies, due to the fact that many more single mothers were opting to keep their baby, once it was born. Not all abortions performed are for "birth control".

The low adoption numbers are because of several factors other than women choosing to keep their child (or abort a fetus). There's the fact that many couples are not interested in adopting anything but a newborn white baby. And they sure don't want to adopt a baby with any kind of health problems, such as an addiction or a physical disability. I suppose I can't blame them, but as a mother who gave birth to 4 children, there were risks that I had to take and that all mothers take when giving birth. A person could go insane if they were to dwell on all the things that COULD happen during a pregnancy.

Another reason people are going overseas to adopt is two-fold. Some of those couples are older and outside the age where adopting a child is preferred in the U.S. Also, some people would rather adopt to help over-population in other countries. Anjelina Jolie is a prime example of that.

I know several women my age who relinquished their babies for adoption, one who had an abortion because the future health of the child she was carrying was very questionable, and am adopted myself. Looking at the adoption/abortion question always makes me think that either of those two alternatives would be very, very hard to deal with. It wasn't THAT long ago that girls who became pregnant and chose to give their babies up for adoption were considered tramps, to say the least, and shipped off to other states or hidden from society. At least we've progressed on that.

 

Nathan said:

 

Predestined,

There was nothing untrue about my statement.

There are people who want to adopt a child and instead adopt from other countries because of the wait.

Simply put, there are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies to adopt.

This is not a discussion about all the different types and reasons for adoption.

If the argument is that no one wants to help after birth, then my rebuttal is that there are people willing to adopt.

It was that simple. I know a couple who adopted a baby from China and paid many thousands of dollars so they wouldn't have to wait for years on a list here in America.

My argument is that if people can't take care of their children they can give them up for adoption rather than have an abortion.

Yes, I know there are children who are not adopted because of their age or because of their disabilities. It is tragic.

However, the majority of the millions of abortions performed are for convienence, not because of health.

I was in no way presenting false information or only part of the truth.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln, November, 21, 1864

 

tracyaphillips said:

 

Yes, we all know Hank and Pup are,
as Dave Knadler put it,
"Shining bastions of tolerance".
I did not name them in my post.
Apparently they were offended anyway.
For that I apologize, but I doubt I can write something that won't offend somebody somewhere.
I went to a garden party....

 

tracyaphillips said:

 

Just so we're all on the same page:

Main Entry: 2progressive
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2 capitalized : a member of any of various United States political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

Main Entry: 1pop·u·list
Pronunciation: 'pä-py&-list
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin populus the people
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

 

Wendy said:

 

Nathan,

You missed the point of Tracy's post. HE was not meaning this to be a debate on past topics, but rather on present. Therefore the only burden of proof would be on current topics. NOT PAST. But here's a start for you : Voting Rights Act Passes in House Despite Conservative Opposition ... Lewis was nearly killed in 1965 by Alabama state troopers during a civil rights march. ...
www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/07/ale06088.html (And this is RECENT opposition, as in last year!)


Danny,

Perhaps my statement was rather all encompassing - but the truth is that much administration regarding many types of SC research has been blocked by conservative parties - because the many different types of SC are usually encompassed in one legislation. If you disagree with the concept that these embryos exist at all, I respect your right to that opinion. I also respect the right to disagree.

Nathan,

The key part of your adoption argument is that these people want to adopt BABIES. There are thousands of CHILDREN out there who need homes. If these people really wanted to adopt a child that badly, why would they not adopt one of these children - whose parents were not able to take care of them any more than the parents of a baby were. Arguing that there is a shortage of adoptable children in this country is misguided and pretty much a lie. There is only a shortage of "suitable" adoptable infants. People simply don't want a child over the age of one, that is why they adopt from other countries. True, some of them may be more altruistic - but you can't deny that it is the case in many instances. My fiance and I plan to adopt a CHILD (not an infant) after our marriage, and once my son is a little bit older. We hope to adopt a two or three year old child - race is not important, disability is not important - we simply want to give a child a loving home. We also hope to have a child of our own, but due to medical conditions resulting from the birth of my son, we may not be able to do so. We are looking to have a truly blended family - my son from a previous relationship, a child through the two of us, and a child that we get to choose simply because they are a child we chose....

 

Danny said:

 

Wendy,

Thats cool. Much of why I'm against ESC research stems from where my ideas of when life begins. Nathan and Linda pointed out(indirectly or not) that further I'm likely to end up being against in vitro fertilization which puts us in to the state of having to choose how do we destroy this embryo.

Further, congrats on choosing to adopt. I agree there are people who want to adopt, however want to adopt "perfection." So while it is true there is a shortage of children to adopt, by one point of view, there really isn't this shortage, just the shortage of ideal. At the same time, there are those more open to adopting any child, just not as many of those willing to. My wife and I may eventually adopt, just not immediately as I'd like to be making a little bit more money than I currently am.

 

Nathan said:

 

Wendy,

It is a good thing my argument was never about there being a shortage of children to adopt, rather babies.

It was only a part of an overall picture that there are indeed people out there that are willing to care after birth.

My argument was never about adoption it's self yet this appears to be what everyone is arguing. The discussion was about abortion and WS Clarks statement that all we care about is the baby before birth not after. Which is wrong. Which WS Clark still refuses to defend.

 

Predestined said:

 

Nathan,

As usual, it appears you didn't comprehend a darned thing. I never said you lied, yet that's what you got out of it. Being not wholly truthful is not lying, unless you consider omission a lie. You've focused on one small thing, therefore you only presented part of the truth. I offered a wider view, as did Wendy. If you're so myopic that you don't want to see that, go right ahead. If that floats your boat, go for it.

 

Predestined said:

 

So let's get back on topic.
I agree with Tracy's comment that conservatives (as a whole) appear only to be interested in the fetus PRIOR to birth, yet afterward an unwanted child is born, they could care less.

I've seen many stories here about people helping others, and that's wonderful to see. Too bad there isn't more of it. If that was true, every one of the conservatives (or liberals or independents) would be willing to adopt a baby they "saved" from abortion. Instead, what I've heard is a lot of (especially) conservatives whining and moaning and bitching about the 1 cent of each tax dollar that goes to TAF (cash assistance) for people who need a helping hand, and those are predominantly single mothers.

If you knew one thing about seeking and receiving help in the situation we've been discussing, you might see things differently.

 

tracyaphillips said:

 

Just for the record.
I believe in abortion in very, very limited cases.
Just being irresponsible is not a good case.
I don't think conservatives ignore or mistreat children. They may be less likely to fund social programs, but it's not right to portray conservatives as bad for kids.
I do believe in ESC research. From discarded & other already available sources.
By definition, conservatives were opposed to the things I listed.
In all fairness, I'm sure they were opposed to many things that NEEDED to be opposed.
And I am not here to argue with Hank, Nathan or anybody else, when it comes to doing more than simply disagreeing.
I write, you read.
If ya'll think it's extremely smart, stupid, or inbetween, PLEASE COMMENT.
That's the way it works.

 

Danny said:

 

Pre,

You don't have an argument from on that your comment. I'm not against social programs that help those in need. I was in the situation I qualified for said need, opted not take advantage of it, because one I'm was a college student and learned how to live off little very quickly, and two one of my jobs offered health insurance to me at a very reasonable price. Mind you it wasn't the best, but it wasn't bad either.
So in my case, I thought leave the resources there for others in much more need than myself.

This is how I was raised, think of others, and do for them through action and not just words. So I think these programs are necessary, though I wonder that if a particular resource is available through employment at a reasonable cost should that option not be taken first if possible? I suspect that the attitude of society is generally a "me" centric one. If I can have it, I am going to take it, without regard as to someone else who could use it more or need it more.

So I suppose you won't get that argument from me about TAF and other forms of assistance, as I believe that these forms of assistance are good things. I really don't understand why others who are, and I'll pick on abortion here, against abortion and against assistance for those that would otherwise have had an abortion if that assistance weren't there. It just seems counter-intuitive to me.

This probably has gone way, way off topic. So, I'll step off the soap box now for a bit.

 

Wendy said:

 

Right, Nathan, except that you talk about adopting children in general, not babies. I could cut and paste your comments but that somehow seems counter-intuitive. Not to mention the fact that your argument is that you do not stop caring after a child is born, as WSClark stated. Well, once these babies are no longer babies, they are children. If there is a shortage of BABIES to adopt so people are going overseas, well what about those children who used to be babies and still need to be adopted? Does that mean you stop caring after they are infants? See where I am going with this? You may accuse me of only arguing one side, but that has about as much effect as shooting yourself in the foot...

 

WSClark said:

 

Tracy, I have a private agreement with another poster, who shall remain nameless, to ignore certain folks on this blog, hence my current lack of response to some individuals.

That having been said............... I am PERSONALLY very opposed to abortion, but I have to support a woman's right to choose for her self. I am not gay, but I support gay rights. I am not religious, but I support everyone's right to practice the religion of their choice.

When we begin to deign to decide personal issues for other people, we begin the slide down a very slippery slope.

 

Nathan said:

 

WS Clark,

Oh come now. Let me guess, it is so hard. Could it be you and Linda who are ignoring me?

LOL

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Nathan, I ignore taunts and challenges that may cause me to behave badly. I don't have many of the answers (too many times I don't even have the questions!). I try to address things that interest me, or things I think are important (to me), and I never think my believing something makes it THE truth. I do ignore attitudes.

I don't ignore posters.

I do have a comment on a post you made yesterday. You said, "It is kind of like saying that Hitler was going to kill the Jews anyway so we might as well have supported his medical studies on them..."

Silly me. I would have tried to stop Hitler.

 

Nathan said:

 

Exactly Linda!

That is why we are trying to stop abortion.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I can’t see how your comment about stopping abortions addresses the subject being discussed. If you think it does, you’ll need to discuss that kind of reasoning with someone else.


I know you will remember the subject was left over blastocysts at in vitro clinics.

We weren't discussing abortion but embryonic stem cell research. And the hyprocisy of saying life is being protected by not using those blastocysts in medical research.

They exist. Thousands are thrown in the trash annually. Stopping abortions doesn’t stop this from happening.

If they shouldn't be thrown in the trash as medical waste, maybe it's best to try to stop the clinics from harvesting eggs in order to allow that way of becoming a parent. Or at minimum your protest should be trying to figure out how to use all the blastocysts created in this endeavor of in vitro fertilization to help childless couples.