Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (82781)	9/7/2008 3:51:40 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

I don't know who expressed surprise at her keeping her Down's baby. I must have missed that. Can you give me a post? I sure wasn't surprised- nor do I have any problem with women making that choice (of course I like women who chose to have babies to raise them, but that's just a personal foible- I wouldn't put it in to law.) Turns out one of the best ways to have moral teens (at least sexually speaking) is to be...liberal. Quite the conundrum isn't it? At least for republicans. Let them wonder no more at our crafty lefty strategy. We're actually keeping our kids virgins by being liberal. Message 24792576

To: Katelew who wrote (82781)	9/7/2008 4:16:48 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541582

I went back and looked at a lot of the posts- I couldn't find people expressing surprise at her keeping the baby. One person was surprised she'd have the dangerous test if she wasn't going to act on the results, but that's hardly surprise at keeping the baby. I think you may remember this discussion a little differently than it actually happened. Everyone seemed to agree down's babies can be lovable. No one thinks they "have" to be aborted. No one is surprised someone pro life would keep their baby. It's hard to respect invisible entities when you don't have one of your own. Asking agnostics or atheists to "respect" religion, when so many people want to cast their religious beliefs in to law, and enforce it by the state, is a bit rich. You can probably get a Muslim and a Christian to respect each others' religions more easily because at least they both have invisible friends- and they both like to see the "rules" of those entities cast in to law. But of course "lack of respect" doesn't translate in to banning religion, not from the left- it merely translates in to "leave the public spaces where government is active free of religion". Considering what the major religions have to say about people without faith (sinners, going to hell, etc), I'd say what agnostics and atheists have to say about the religious is pretty mild. Think about it. No one on the anti-religious side is condemning you for eternity... something to think about, in terms of intolerance. I personally am not indifferent to cultural influences that make parenting more difficult. One thing that makes parenting a lot more different is that moms are no longer home to supervise neighborhoods. Back when I was a kid, moms were always looking out their kitchen windows- and they'd come out and stop mischief. That's one more reason why I'm for moms that are moms, and actually raise their kids- and their is data on the fact that this is effective- you can see how well that goes over. No one wants to do it, even if it is effective. Most people (sadly) seem to merely use cultural influences they are uncomfortable with as a proxy for "those influences that are bad"- with no real care for the data on the influences. Obviously people aren't going to be logical any time soon, and I'm 100% for the dems pandering to the religious and the un-elite (although considering the price of Ms. McCain's wardrobe it's amazing the dems get tagged as "elite"), and whoever else we need to pander to in order to win, but imo asking the non-religious to respect folks consigning them to hell under the banner of being "not antagonistic to religion" is pretty rich. Anyone else see the irony there? Anyone else here going to be "Left Behind"? :-)

To: Katelew who wrote (82781)	9/7/2008 5:03:58 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 541582

GOsh, I would be surprised if I had been surprised, given her beliefs- and my own. I;m not religious and I couldn't have done it. I believe the reason Dems were opposed to the partial birth ban was the refusal to consider the health of the mother in the ban. I know I read that about Obama. And I agree. I am completely opposed to partial birth, but anything that doesn't allow for certain contingencies-- well, it's like Palin and her insistence that the fruit of rape or incest not be abortable. As for parental notification- I have always been in favor of it, and have argued for it many times in the past few years on other threads. It seems completely contradictory to me to hold parents responsible for children until they are 18, and yet undermine them in such a serious way. (but then I was a conservative before I became a liberal):)