http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...naire.pl?page=1

my results:

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.97

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

The numbers are really close.

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23

Hmm, and so who should I vote for next?

Stalin.

Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.51

economic: -3.75

social: 2

Damn... I'm surrounded by communists!

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.30

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.05

Dang... you're a lot less fun than I'd imagined...

And what are you implying? That I don't know how to have fun?

these are my results.... i am surprised......

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

+6 authoritarian!

You're practically a Maoist! No fun!

Communists, eh? Well, that makes sense, since most of us here are Asian.

Quisty-sempai... *pouts* Bacon's implying mean things about my results... I was too bored to read what my results mean... do you know?

It could mean that you're a strict person or something. I apologize for knowing close to nothing about politics and political terminology. I can barely distinguish left-wing from right. *sighs* I'm a failure . . .

But by Maoist, he's speaking of Mao Tse-Tung. He was, to put it simply, a communist.

I studied Communist history in my 11th grade class...and I hated it... history has always been one of best subjects; after I studied Communism, it plummeted to the lowest grade.. T_T...

And, yeah, I guess I have strict morals... they're plain and simple:

1.Anti-abortion
2.Anti-premarital ***
3.Anti-homosexual rights

I apologize if I've offended anyone... but tihs is what I stand for.

Anti-gay rights, eh?

Now I'm anticipating a catfight between you and Vael... That should be fun.

Oh shut up, sweetheart...

I'm anti-premarital as well, but a little more neutral about the other two, especially with the issue of abortion. I've always been the pro-life type, but ever since the ethics class I'm in covered the arguments regarding pro-choice, I now find that logically, there are times when abortion isn't necessarily wrong. But I still question that.

Learning messes me up.

Life is seldom black & white... it's a lot of grey... it's all grey, really.

I just hope for your sake, blingy, that you never find yourself in a position where you have to do something that contradicts your beliefs.

Bacon: Is that a threat, darling?

Quisty-sempai: I understand what you're talking about... I've been studying ethics since 10th grade and they do bring up those abortion problems that seriously pull heart-strings... One of them was: "The mother will die if the baby isn't aborted. What do you, if you are the doctor?" I was like, oh screw it...

However, my reasons for being anti-abortion lies in the fact that I am anti-premarital... [Okay, so I joke alot about hentai, but seriously now...]

I hate people who have s3x and then don't want to face the consequences of having a child. They're murdering a potential human being. Can you accept that? It's as insane as uprooting a seed underground because you say that it hsn't blossomed into a flower. Well, duh, it hasn't blossomed... it isn't "time" for it yet; same thing goes for the unborn child...

Not a threat. But it should be noted that abortions were much more common in the U.S. during supposedly pro-life administrations [Reagan, Bush I, Bush II] than during pro-choice ones over the last 25 years... Something to think about.

But what if a girl gets knocked up as a result of rape? What's she supposed to do then? Pregnancy isn't something to take lightly. It's 9 months you spend with your life literally turned upside down, followed by 36 hours of horrid pain. Do you think a woman should be forced to endure that for a child it wasn't her choice to conceive?

Abortions should be safe, available and rare.

This one abortion debate I once went to outside of classes talked of potentiality as well, and a philosopher there stated that "just because it WILL BE, does NOT mean that IT IS now." Which makes sense to certain extents.

And there are cases of rape (EDIT: which Bacon mentioned) in which the child was unwanted, and therefore has no right to depend on the mother, and can be aborted, so on and so forth. Whereas if two people consent to acts of intercourse, only then is it not right to abort the fetus. Complicated as heck if you delve deeper into the issue with more philosophical theories, I can say that much.

There are also notions which state that if the developing child did not have to be in the womb for 9 months and was instead 1 hour only (like developing film!), then abortion might be taken a little more lightly.

You guys are both right about the rape issue... I'mma think about a comeback for that one...

And, yes, Bacon... so-called pro-life dynasties never really work... the power to stop it don't belong to the government, but to the woman who will use her heart as well as head...

Okay, I got it: it isn't the child's fault that he/she is concieved by rape... juss because of that, does that poor child have to die? Is it his/her fault? Will you not give the child a chance? How heartless can you get? The child already has the stain of shame upon it; will you further it by murdering his/her only chance to change his/her future? Think about it...

But, for the girl, that would be hella ticked off... giving birth to a child you never wanted to get, through rape. But then, didn't her mother--and all mothers--go through with the pain? If I was her, I'd buck up and deal with it. Pain is an inevitable essence of life...

Death is an inevitable part of life, too. And it doesn't spare those in utero, either. A lot of women suffer miscarriages, and a lot of women can't have children at all.

Being pro-choice isn't about being pro-abortion. It's about making sure a woman has the option of having one if she gets placed in a situation where having a child will ruin her life.

I'm not trying to sway opinions... just justifying my own position.

That's absolutely correct, Bacon.

As well, the way I see it, how pro-life really kind of originated was from the argument that:

Every human being has a right to life.
An unborn child is a human being.
Therefore, an unborn child has a right to life.
Thus abortion should never be performed.

But there are arguments which claim that an unborn child in its fetal state isn't really considered a human being until a certain number of weeks/days into the pregnancy (if I can remember my biology correctly). So that would make the above argument unsound, however valid it may be.

And regarding the pain factor, I've heard that there are mothers nowadays who choose to have C-sections even when they don't need to, simply because they want to minimize the pain involved. I am quite against that, as it appears so lazy and selfish. In my opinion, the mother/child bond is strong partly because of the amount of pain the mother had to go through in order to give birth to the child.

Well put, Bacon... [gosh, you're getting better than ColdAsIce with debates...]

But shouldn't death come naturally? Not by some pincer-holding doctor...

Yeah, you're right about the child pretty much ruining the mother's life... but, aside from rape, can you call that justifiable? Like what Quisty-sempai said? It's wrong and pretty much selfish... juss because of inconvenience, you're gonna murder a child... horrible!

That's like saying you wanna kill the person standing in front of you in a line juss cuz he's blocking you're view... insane, isn't it? [although, I do threaten people who won't get out of my way, ]

Funny how society can view abortion and murder as one thing, yet two separate things. But then comes the part where if you meld them together as one thing, one would basically be saying that legally, all mothers who decide to have an abortion should be charged for murder. Then there would be an awful lot of people in jail. And should you separate the two (abortion and murder), then abortion would no longer be murder.

Oh, the circles.

A fetus is not a child.

And the way I see it, it's less objectionable to take away someone's life who's yet to experience it at all, than threaten that of someone who has already lived and wants to keep on living without the pain, shame and burden of birthing and raising an unwanted child.

I'm not sure that's acceptable for me...

Abortion falls under murder because you're snuffing out the life of someone who could have been "something" in this world.

A fetus not a child? What is it then? A mass of blob floating along? It is a human being as soon as it is concieved, by rape or consent.

I suppose the fetus =(?) child issue depends on which trimester the pregnancy is in. Nonetheless, anti-abortionists speak of abortion as the killing of human beings, yet philosophically, we define human beings as rational creatures. The fetus/developing child, depending on the stage of the pregnancy, is incapable of acting or anything that can prove its rationality, therefore, some see it as "not a human being."

Apparently, if you put it like that, then abortion is not justifiable, but permissible.

Very true, sempai...

But then, since toddlers and infants have no use of reason yet, then they're not human beings? And what about mentally-disabled? They're not humans?

That's what so funny about human reasoning, I suppose. If something has been born and is out of the womb, it naturally becomes a human being. I have no coherent ways to answer your question of use of reason at the moment. I'll come back to that later.

You're walking a fine line between morality and dogma with that statement. Dogma has been a tool to govern people in the past, and nothing good has ever come of it.

At the center of everything lies the question of whether you, as an individual, want the government dictating what you can or cannot do with your own body. And whether you like it or not, a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb IS part of your body. I personally do not think the government has that right.

It's up to your parents and [if it applies] your church to instill you with values. The government's role is to protect you in the event that you're wronged by someone else. If the government outlaws abortion, period, then it is flagrantly stepping outside its bounds, because it's neither protecting you, nor allowing you to choose what to do with your own body.

'Reason' is defined as rational thought. This is something that even infants and toddlers posses rudimentary forms of. When they touch a sharp object and get hurt, they know immediately not to touch it again. That is reason in itself.

Darn it, Bacon, you're always one step ahead of me. Was just going to post something in those lines.

Also, the debate of whether or not you're killing an "innocent" being is questionable. Because the unborn child has not committed any acts of which we can judge, it is neither innocent nor guilty, therefore in performing abortion, you are essentially not killing an innocent being.

Well fancy that... I go off to lunch and see what awaits me upon return.

Very well met, Bacon... it's true that the government must protect women in the event that the have been violated. I'd've said that then, the government should just make legal abortion for raped-cases, but then, I can see all women going to clinics saying they've been raped... ... how pathetic.

Araaaa~, Quisty-sempai... you've got me at a tight spot, there... as for guilty, or not guilty, a child who does not have the use of reason--probably 6-ish--is considered "innocent" regardless of what it does or does not do... same thing goes for a fetus...

Sometimes you just have to trust people to exercise their best judgment and have a conscience. When a government operates on principles of bad faith, that's when authoritarian and totalitarian regimes arise. Nobody needs that.

Unfortunately, The definition of "reason" that Bacon gave there is a little contradictory when placed beside:



I suppose in this manner, one takes the definition of "innocence" to a rather literal degree. And as I have mentioned before, if there are no acts to judge by, then it is neither innocent nor guilty. And a fetus cannot act in a manner which proves that it is rational, therefore, it is "not" a human being.

Poor babies.

!!! Yeah... that's true... *smirks* But then, that brings about the rather nasty question again, Sempai... What of the mentally-handicapped? They cannot, in anyway, prove that they are rational... are they not humans?

However, I understand 100% your sides, both, Bacon and Quisty-sempai... you guys showed me abortion in a new light, both darker and lighter...

And, Bacon... you are right about trusting people...

As of now, I do not have enough knowledge (or much brain power to think on ) concerning this question. But there are those who are handicapped and still possess rational thought, and most individuals who are handicapped can still understand what is being said to them, so on and so forth. The same with aging seniors who can no longer think coherently, but can still understand some things.

This thread will be a good resource if I ever want to write a paper on abortion.

Haha! That's our Gashole. Always the optimist.

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

Oh, and you don't have to go to an abortion clinic to get an abortion. There is a concoction of herbs (I won't list it here) which will kill a fetus and it flushes like a regular monthly menses. Of course it only works if you catch it really early.

I presume you are talking about the so-called "morning after pill".

no, this is an ancient practice. I think only people in certain places could use it because you have to use specific types of plants to make it.

I wasn't thinking abou the morning after pill, although it is a very ingenious invention ^__^. I don't condone any of it though. If people didn't have sex before marriage, the need for it would be greatly minimized.

Ahh . . . ancient practice. I see, how very interesting.

Yes, if only people can practice abstinence. Too bad it's rare nowadays. I blame the media for using sex appeal to sell things.