"How come with us, it's an abortion, and with a chicken, it's an omelette?". I guess the point on abortion I would add is that it basically comes down to an issue of morality, and I think it's safe to say that in that case it's up to the individual to decide upon their morals, not for government to do it for us. I realize that this argument is easily countered because rape and murder could be seen as an issue of morality and it's EXACTLY the job of government to impose those morals. The counter-counter argument is that with rape and murder there is a victim whose basic human rights are being impeded upon, whereas in the case of abortion there is not... except for the counter-counter-counter argument that pro-lifers feel a fetus is a person. So, I guess you're right, Xtokalon, this argument can never be waged on logic - it'll always come down to the "is a fetus a person" opinion. However, as for the general notion of "pro-choice" I feel very strongly about the power of the individual to be left alone to make choices so long as they are prepared to face the consequences of those actions. I feel it's safe to say that the vast majority of people wouldn't have an abortion if they felt deep down that they were killing a conscious individual... they have the abortion because they are not prepared/able to give that child the life it would deserve. They do it to do what they feel is the right thing. I realize this point is completely invalid for the purposes of argument and easily refuted, but that's my opinion.
Lina, I can agree with you that government-subsidized education for low income families would certainly be a better idea than making that determination racially. Then, if those (in most parts of the US apparently black) individuals are able to recieve that higher education they'll be qualified enough to compete for positions on a fair basis without having to be aided by quotas. I realize this is idealistic based on the hope that there aren't any bigots in positions of power to make those decisions, but you can't force people to stop being racist... they're only going to backlash to that. It has to be deemed as socially unacceptable in any group of people, and there are backwards areas of the world where that has not yet become the case. It's unfortunate, but I stand by my point that there cannot be equality without, well, equality. Any attempt to force the proverbial scales back to level only cures the symptoms, not the illness - it remains (and, often causes other "symptoms"). Aren't we tired of simply trying to hide these issues in one way or another, or just force the correction of the end result without looking at the real, underlying issue? We could also just force every employer in the world to give women raises until the average salaries of women equal that of men, but does that get rid of the sexist men who do that only because they are bound to do so by legislation? They'll still never give those women a raise simply because they deserve it, and then, they'll stop doing so for the men because if they did they'd have to for the women as well, and then the wives and daughters of those men aren't helped at all, and the world is essentially dragged down to be bound to the lowest common denominator of the prejudices of the slime in control. (I hope that all made at least some sense...)
As for genetic engineering, I see it as another way for man to oh-so-brilliantly screw around with nature. Humanity is caught in an interesting rut in that we cannot evolve without pushing the boundaries of technology, but with every advance we put ourselves in another postion of being able to in some capacity screw ourselves. I think, reading back, that this is in a more specific and tangible way of saying more or less what Xtokalon was talking about. I guess the bottom line is we're going to do it anyways... so we better make sure we know damn well what we are doing and make sure to be responsible when we screw up and hope it's not too catastophic. There's a cheery outlook for ya...
UN Troops... well, the UN COULD have sat by and let people get slaughtered in Kosovo, or it could not. They COULD have let Saddam Hussien go around invading whatever countries he felt like... or they could not. Basically, I feel the role of the UN is to prevent injustices against human rights and international law without imposing itself unnecessarily. I'm going to go off a bit here and I may make myself unpopular for this... but oh well, might as well stir the pot some more.
Israel. The Jewish people got so screwed throughout history. I really feel for them as a culture because no one has EVER gotten fucked over by everyone else as bad and as long for no good reason. I've read a lot about the history of antisemetism and I could go on a massive tangent with a multitude of examples, but I'll get to my point. The creation of the state of Israel by the United Nations was a massive mistake. What would happen if the U.N. walked into manhattan and said "Yeah... y'know how the natives lived here for thousands of years and you came along and viciously stole their land and killed them all? Well, we're creating a Sioux nation on Manhattan island. All you Americans get out - you're no longer welcome here. Oh, and we're going to supply the Sioux with the best military technology to support their cause." And then, the natives and americans went to war and the natives conquered all of the state of New York.
I know this is a silly example, but that's basically what happened in Palistine and the Palestinians are a little ticked off about it, and you have to respect that - their land (what had been their land for 2000 years, give or take a crusade or two) was taken from them and handed over to someone else. I don't blame the Isralies, though - that one was the U.N.'s mistake, BUT! They tried to make up for years of horrific injustice against the jews by forcing the scales the other direction... and look at that! Someone else innocent is victimized! Just like Affirmative Action, eh? Equal rights, folks, not special rights. Past injustices must remain in the past... they can't be made up for one way or another no matter which side of the issue you stand on. What we can do, though, is work towards true equality.
So, it does depend on the situation. There ARE times U.N. intervention is very necessary to protect the basic human rights of the people of the world, and other times when they're imposing their own guilts and issues upon others.
Next up... Porn. People like porn. People make really good money making porn. So long as it's all over-18 and with full consent, it's completely victimless and harmless. There' supply, there's demand, the economy rolls - all is good. If you're religiously inclined you can be proud to know that it's your sexually stifling ideaologies that create a demand for porn. Without religiously imposed moral ideas the hedonisic result would be a socially acceptable sexual freedom that would make pornography irrelivant. "Prisons are built with bricks of law, brothels with bricks of religion", but that's okay. I like porn - besides, it's the safest sex there is.
