Voting made simple

[Stan]

a- If you like how things are going vote the same party

b- If you do not like the way things are going vote another party.

Good for all Countries..

[Woody]

NOT.

[Neil D]

NOT.

Not!!!!?

NOT WhAT???????

Not vote?????

What are you? Some unpatriotic nut job?

Oopps....Sorry, you're a republican conservative...That explains all...

[Woody]

Point is ... both Obama and McPalin have a chance. A third party man has NO chance.

[carolaa]

I wonder that too. Like my state of Texas is projected to go pretty heavily toward McCain, so is a vote for Obama any more of a wasted vote here than for a 3rd party candidate? That's actually something I'm struggling with this week.

Intellectually, I think a person should vote for the candidate that most reflects their views, whichever party they are. But emotionally, I want to vote for someone who has a chance of winning.

The more votes a 3rd party candidate gets, the more of their policies will be moved to the mainstream, so I don't think it is a wasted vote at all.

[Jeannieb43]

I couldn't live with myself if I voted for somebody who didn't reflect my views.

Especially regarding choice over one's own body.

[carolaa]

If we force women to bear children they don't want, is that any better than the Chinese forcing women to abort children they want? It's really all about control, I think.

[Woody]

Adoption

[Woody]

No one forced them to have Sex.

[carolaa]

Are you serious?

[Woody]

Sex = Babies

If you don't want babies ...

[carolaa]

Have you never heard of rape or incest?

[Woody]

Not talkin about that

[carolaa]

I guess we're talking about 2 different things then. At any rate, I don't think women should be forced to carry or abort a baby.

[Woody]

So then ... you are talking about women who have been raped? Right?

[carolaa]

What I'm talking about is that we don't always know the circumstances of a pregnancy, and I don't think we need to be going into people's business. It is an extremely personal decision, with all kinds of emotional trauma, and to add the burden of coercion - one way or the other - is just incomprehensible and unacceptable to me.

I would love for every woman who got pregnant to choose to carry it and give it a happy home. But that is not real life.

[Bravus]

But these are precisely the points:

1. Life, sex and conception are complicated and messy, and solutions that are too simplistic cause as many problems as they solve. It's possible to, as many of us here do, believe absolutely in the sanctity of life but yet also believe that, in the light of that messiness and complication, decisions about the best possible course for all concerned are best left between the mother, the father (if he's on the scene) and the medical professionals. That approach would necessarily be complemented by a clear and strong - but not horrific or manipulative - program of education, and by significant support for adoption and other means of helping make it possible for pregnancies to be carried through in difficult circumstances.

2. As Redwood's comments above suggest, and as much of the other rhetoric around the issue also shows, it's often less about the sanctity of life than about control over sex. Opposing abortion becomes a back door means of criminalising extra-marital sex. Again, those here who believe absolutely in the sanctity of marriage, and believe that within a committed marriage is the only appropriate place for sex, nonetheless realise that in a fallen world that is an ideal that not everyone attains. In that light, sensible, thoughtful sex education that includes good information on contraception would serve the goal of reducing and avoiding abortions... but is often *opposed* by pro-lifers because their real goal is to control sex. A consistent anti-abortion stance would include high quality sex education that goes beyond abstinence-only approaches.

[Dr. Shane]

Opposing abortion becomes a back door means of criminalising extra-marital sex.

I have not heard that explanation before. That really sounds on the edge of paranoia to me. I have been involved with a lot of organizations that oppose abortion and have never heard anyone mention it as a means of criminalizing extra-marital sex. However when pro-choice groups oppose legislation that would make a married woman inform her husband about a pregnancy before being able to terminate it, it really sounds like that want to use abortion to cover up extra-marital sex.

Sex education doesn't go far enough nor is it effective enough. (Bare in mind, I am pro-choice) Many teenage pregnancies are the result of drinking and drugs. Those getting pregnant don't need education. They know how to prevent pregnancy, they don't care.

Most women that seek abortions are 1) scared, 2) desperate, 3) feel dispair, 4) feel they have no options. The number one thing we can do to decrease the number of abortions is to support crisis-pregnancy centers. These centers take women in. They counsel them, encourage them, support them and inform them of their options. Over 80% of women wanting abortion do not have an abortion after going to a crisis-pregnancy center. That tells us right there that loving and caring about these women helps the problem more than any amount of legislation banning the practice does.

However, like tobacco, the government may want to leave abortion legal but use public policy to discourage it. That means 1) banning abortion after the first trimester except in cases to save the mother's life, rape or incest. 2) Mandatory 24-hour waiting period. 3) Mandatory counseling administered by approved counseling which cannot be affiliated with an abortion provider. 4) Parental consent laws with a judicial waiver exception.

[carolaa]

That's great, Shane. Have you ever considered running for office?

[Bravus]

Yeah, I think that last paragraph outlines a very sensible approach, which I would support.

I disagree on sex education - I'm a high school teacher, and I know how pathetic kids' understanding of sex and contraception can be, and the myths that circulate among them. Good sex ed won't prevent *every* pregnancy, but it would definitely prevent some. There is no law or persuasion that is perfect, so the standard is 'better' - and IMO both abstinence-only sex education and no sex education are 'worse'.

Maybe criminalising extra-marital sex was an overstatement, but I certainly think there's a whole lot of 'well, if people would just stop having sex they'd stop getting pregnant and stop needing abortions' thinking going on. There are things like the opposition to the cervical cancer vaccine in some Christian communities, because the fear of cervical cancer has been a tool for terrifying girls of having sex... so that group would rather expose girls to a preventable and potentially fatal disease to avoid using that tool.

But yeah, go the last para!

[Dr. Shane]

That's great, Shane. Have you ever considered running for office?

If I ran for political office it would be on the local level. I think I can have more influence as a member of the local media than I would have as a local politician.

[Dr. Shane]

I disagree on sex education - I'm a high school teacher, and I know how pathetic kids' understanding of sex and contraception can be, and the myths that circulate among them. Good sex ed won't prevent *every* pregnancy, but it would definitely prevent some. There is no law or persuasion that is perfect, so the standard is 'better' - and IMO both abstinence-only sex education and no sex education are 'worse'.

I wrote about sex education in my most recent column. You can read it online here. Gov. Palin's Daughter And Underage Pregnancy Nick Aldridge is my pen name. Since I am a local contractor and my livelihood is dependent on local politicians awarding my company work, I do not write my column with my real name.

[Bravus]

Very good column, Shane, with which I fully agree.