The New American Center | Esquire Magazine/ NBC

[♪alt13]

I think I confused it.

I'm a Whatever man. "You're part of the 13% that's not politically engaged"

That's the problem with trying to plot peoples political leanings linearly. It doesn't really explain anything.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think I confused it.

I'm a Whatever man. "You're part of the 13% that's not politically engaged"

That's the problem with trying to plot peoples political leanings linearly. It doesn't really explain anything.

My wife got the same thing and her take on politics is that she has way too much going on taking care of the family, kids, house, part time job, etc. to worry about that crap.

 

[Siro]

I think I confused it.

I'm a Whatever man. "You're part of the 13% that's not politically engaged"

That's the problem with trying to plot peoples political leanings linearly. It doesn't really explain anything.

I would say you're slightly left of center. And that result is like the OPPOSITE of you. You're the initiator of a large portion of the good discussion threads.

 

[♪alt13]

My wife got the same thing and her take on politics is that she has way too much going on taking care of the family, kids, house, part time job, etc. to worry about that crap.

I think that in my case I am politically engaged. I hold some opinions that are at odds with the right and the left. Putting me in the center is also inappropriate because most of my views really can't be categorized as centrist. For instance I answered yes to legalizing prostitution which last time I checked wasn't exactly a centrists position. I find the polls that give results on a coordinate plane to be more insightful.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Because the cut-off for what makes a human a human is completely arbitrary for the pro-choice movement. There is no logical connection between a fetus's dependence on the mother for its survival, and the mother's inherent right to end the life of the fetus. After all, pregnancies don't just happen. They're the result of sexual intercourse that you should be prepared for if you want to be sexually active. I've had long discussions with pro-choicers over the years, including one with One Brow. And the best justification he could come up with was an analogy to a person who sees someone dying, but chooses to withhold help. In pro-choicers view, it is completely within the person's right whether or not to help, and thus dependency is always an imposition and is always a sufficient justification for ending said dependency. That's not exactly the most compassionate view of morality, and it is a far cry from the left's pretension of abortion access being a basic human right. Which isn't surprising since the pro-choice's battle cry is "my body, my choice", which is the same as "I'll do what I want". It ignores all the complaints about the right of a human not to be killed due to no fault of his or her own.

But I'm perfectly happy with exceptions for rape, incest, and out of considerations for the mother's health. There is also the matter of practicality of law. If abortions are banned, then some women will try to perform the procedure themselves. And that's terrible. So I'm willing to live with universal allowances for first-trimester abortions. But I don't have to like it.

So yeah, Islam got it right this time.

I feel close to 100% similar (at least at this point in my life). Thus, if I got a girl pregnant, I would have profound ethical problems with letting my pregnant compatriot abort the child, whether she wanted to or not. It's funny when people say "life doesn't begin at conception, because the embryo is just....a bunch of tissues and cells! Well.. aren't we still just tissues and cells? Sure we're dependent on our mothers at one point, but this doesn't make us any less alive. You have an actual species living inside you, and I find it nuts that people feel comfortable muting its life at any point.


However, it is always tricky deciding between what is "morally right", and what should be legislated in society.


The problem you mentioned with regards to practicality of law is a HUGE one, particularly in the developing world. Countries that "ban" abortion don't really have their abortion rates drop-- however, the amount of deaths to mothers that occur due to abortions rise.

So I dunno. I'm fine with having my taxes hiked a bit to let people have abortions even if its out of pure irresponsibility-- because I'd rather have that, than have stressed teenage females accidentally taking their own lives due to a legislation that won't really stop abortions. It's a lose-lose-- so I'll just have to be pro-life myself, and preach pro-life within the confines of my children and my family. The country can do whatever they want.

 

[Siro]

I feel close to 100% similar (at least at this point in my life). Thus, if I got a girl pregnant, I would have profound ethical problems with letting my pregnant compatriot abort the child, whether she wanted to or not. It's funny when people say "life doesn't begin at conception, because the embryo is just....a bunch of tissues and cells! Well.. aren't we still just tissues and cells? Sure we're dependent on our mothers at one point, but this doesn't make us any less alive. You have an actual species living inside you, and I find it nuts that people feel comfortable muting its life at any point.


However, it is always tricky deciding between what is "morally right", and what should be legislated in society.


The problem you mentioned with regards to practicality of law is a HUGE one, particularly in the developing world. Countries that "ban" abortion don't really have their abortion rates drop-- however, the amount of deaths to mothers that occur due to abortions rise.

So I dunno. I'm fine with having my taxes hiked a bit to let people have abortions even if its out of pure irresponsibility-- because I'd rather have that, than have stressed teenage females accidentally taking their own lives due to a legislation that won't really stop abortions. It's a lose-lose-- so I'll just have to be pro-life myself, and preach pro-life within the confines of my children and my family. The country can do whatever they want.

I'm sure one day we'll invent artificial wombs that are just as good as the natural ones. That would probably end the debate. Or at least I hope it would.

 

[LogGrad98]

I would say you're slightly left of center. And that result is like the OPPOSITE of you. You're the initiator of a large portion of the good discussion threads.

Remember we are hampered by the poll itself and how it calculates these things. I am pretty sure if you put pray every day, pick a christian denomination, and voted for romney you will automatically be lumped into the religious right. I am pretty sure because I played around with it and picked all the hard leftist responses other than abortion and religious and it put me in the religious right. That is a problem with these is the biases inherent in the people who made it too.

 

[Hekate]

I know I am not living in USA but I took the test. Twice. I try to follow foreign politics some so I guessed it wouldn't be a problem too much.

First result was the same as E.J. Wells'.

I'm one of the MBA Middle, whatever MBA is. I am part of the 13% that is defined by a strong live-and-let-live mentality. I am part of the new American Center.

I'm not sure why Duck is proud to be lumped in with the whacko's, but whatever. The closer we, as a society, get to the center, the sooner Bill Mahr, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, and Rush Limbaugh will cease to be.

And second one was same with Dala's. I tried to be a little bit more decisive with this and mostly strongly agreed or disagreed.

Bleeding heart liberal. Not a part of the Center. Lol.

I haven't been able to figure out what this tells about me, though.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think that in my case I am politically engaged. I hold some opinions that are at odds with the right and the left. Putting me in the center is also inappropriate because most of my views really can't be categorized as centrist. For instance I answered yes to legalizing prostitution which last time I checked wasn't exactly a centrists position. I find the polls that give results on a coordinate plane to be more insightful.

This is what I was trying to get across in the other thread where this topic came up. I have opinions on different ends of the spectrum and down the middle, but really in the end I am strongly for individual rights and very strongly for personal responsibility and accountability. Maybe that last part came from being raised by parents of the tail end of the depression era where the mantra was really suck it up, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep moving, and you only really get and deserve what you earn.

 

[♪alt13]

Because the cut-off for what makes a human a human is completely arbitrary for the pro-choice movement. There is no logical connection between a fetus's dependence on the mother for its survival, and the mother's inherent right to end the life of the fetus. After all, pregnancies don't just happen. They're the result of sexual intercourse that you should be prepared for if you want to be sexually active. I've had long discussions with pro-choicers over the years, including one with One Brow. And the best justification he could come up with was an analogy to a person who sees someone dying, but chooses to withhold help. In pro-choicers view, it is completely within the person's right whether or not to help, and thus dependency is always an imposition and is always a sufficient justification for ending said dependency. That's not exactly the most compassionate view of morality, and it is a far cry from the left's pretension of abortion access being a basic human right. Which isn't surprising since the pro-choice's battle cry is "my body, my choice", which is the same as "I'll do what I want". It ignores all the complaints about the right of a human not to be killed due to no fault of his or her own.

But I'm perfectly happy with exceptions for rape, incest, and out of considerations for the mother's health. There is also the matter of practicality of law. If abortions are banned, then some women will try to perform the procedure themselves. And that's terrible. So I'm willing to live with universal allowances for first-trimester abortions. But I don't have to like it.

So yeah, Islam got it right this time.

I don't think that it is arbitrary. I am of the group that believes the cut off should be when the fetus can survive outside the mother. Until then it is not an individual and is part of her imo.

 

[LogGrad98]

I feel close to 100% similar (at least at this point in my life). Thus, if I got a girl pregnant, I would have profound ethical problems with letting my pregnant compatriot abort the child, whether she wanted to or not. It's funny when people say "life doesn't begin at conception, because the embryo is just....a bunch of tissues and cells! Well.. aren't we still just tissues and cells? Sure we're dependent on our mothers at one point, but this doesn't make us any less alive. You have an actual species living inside you, and I find it nuts that people feel comfortable muting its life at any point.


However, it is always tricky deciding between what is "morally right", and what should be legislated in society.


The problem you mentioned with regards to practicality of law is a HUGE one, particularly in the developing world. Countries that "ban" abortion don't really have their abortion rates drop-- however, the amount of deaths to mothers that occur due to abortions rise.

So I dunno. I'm fine with having my taxes hiked a bit to let people have abortions even if its out of pure irresponsibility-- because I'd rather have that, than have stressed teenage females accidentally taking their own lives due to a legislation that won't really stop abortions. It's a lose-lose-- so I'll just have to be pro-life myself, and preach pro-life within the confines of my children and my family. The country can do whatever they want.

Wise beyond your years. Good post.

 

[Siro]

I don't think that it is arbitrary. I am of the group that believes the cut off should be when the fetus can survive outside the mother. Until then it is not an individual and is part of her imo.

But how does that define a human? All animals start out the same way. There is no link between the fact that humans start out as a dependent fetus, and their status as humans. Additionally, how is the fetus NOT dependent after a certain point? Wouldn't still be dependent on a whole team of doctors and machines if it is to be extracted? How about infants, aren't they utterly dependent on their caretakers? Wouldn't a baby die if you do not directly intervene to keep it alive? Is it okay to kill babies too? Believe it or not, some on the extreme of the pro-choice side say YES! And not a few crazies either.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

These people are not stupid. That is indeed where the argument of dependence takes us. Is that really the moral outlook we should adopt? Is that really the definition we want for what a human is?