Moderator: Nicole Marie
Shapley wrote:I was browsing through old threads earlier, and stumbled on this one. I reread it, and was thinking about how it was hijacked into a thread on abortion when, suddenly, it hit me. It was no hijack. The war and abortion are direct parallels. It can even be noted in looking at who supports "a woman's right to choose abortion" and the Democrats desire to abort this war, they are almost parallel, as well. Even the arguments are the same:
He lied to get us into bed with him.
We were caught up in the passion of the moment, and didn't consider the consequences.
In another two years, he'll be gone, and we'll ge left to care for the bastard without him.
Shapley wrote:I think it is telling that those of us believe in commitments, who believe in responsibility for one's actions, and who believe in responsibility, are generally the ones who favour restrictions on abortion and completing the mission in Iraq.
Shapley wrote:There is a remarkable similarity between the two. The Democrats who voted to authorize the war prefer to pretend that they were misled, caught up in the passion of 9/11, and didn't really consider the consequences of going to war in Iraq, and they want to abort the war, hoping that it will abort the responsibility for their vote.
Shapley wrote:It is interesting that, three years ago, when it was Mr. Bush Vs. Mr. Kerry, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that, regardless of whether the war was ill-concieved or not, it had to be fought to a successful conclusion, and the majority of the people agreed. Now, a relatively short time later, the consensus of the Democrats has moved to one of aborting the war effort, and they seem to have led the majority of the people with them.
Shapley wrote:As I've said all along, we have lost our sense of duty, our sense of commitment, and our sense of honour. We'll abandon a whole nation as readily as we'll abandon an unwanted child, allowing both to be torn apart and sucked into the vacuum of anarchy.
Marye wrote:Shapley, could one say this as a parallel then? the party that readily supports the right to carry a gun, is the same party that readily supports going to war? Or no...
I think the parallel is quite valid. Let me reiterate:
We penetrated deep into that country and planted the seed of democracy. That seed has brough forth a child, the fledgling government of the new democratic republic. Having thus fathered this child, whether it is illegitimate or not, we have a resposibility to support that child until it is self-sufficient. There is, however, a movement afoot to abort that child, to deny our responsibility. I find it telling that support for aborting the child comes primarily from the same political party that supports the right to abort human children. I think the parallel is valid because it reflects an attitude toward responsibility for ones actions, and a sense of obligation. Once conceived, the obligation is created, and cannot be casually cast aside.
Shapley wrote:Actually, we overthrew a dictator for failure to comply with the terms of the ceasation of hostilities reached ten years earlier, and installed a democratically-elected government. What part is bunk?
I will grant that our failure to invade immediately after the dictator violated the terms of ceasation (during the presidency of Bill Clinton) weakens our position. It does not, however, negate it. Nor does continued utterance of the lie that WMD's were the sole reason for invasion make it true. The lack of WMD's also weakens our justification for war, but does not negate it.
You are sidestepping the point of my response......the "planting seeds of democracry" is hardly tantamount to conceiving a child.
Shapley wrote:You are sidestepping the point of my response......the "planting seeds of democracry" is hardly tantamount to conceiving a child.
Besides, that point is immaterial. The point I'm trying to make is that we have a national attitude about responsibility for the choices we make that says we can 'abort' the consequences if we don't like the direction our choices take us. We have no sense of commitment. If we don't like our 'life partner', we can divorce them (if we even bothered to marry them). If we don't want the baby we've conceived baby, we can kill it in the womb. If we get tired of fighting a war, we can call it off. Consequences be damned, it's what we feel like doing at the moment that counts. There is no big picture; no forest, only individual trees.
That's the point I'm making, not whether a baby and government are similar or not. It's about attitude, it's about duty, it's about responsibility.
It's about following through on commitments and obligations. It's about consequences for our decisions, our actions, our choices.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Just like recent administrations have aborted our commitment to the Great Society?
And if we don't like our elected officials, we change them too. Its called democracy. Many of us did not choose this war...many do not choose to conceive a baby (rape/incest/poverty etc.)...many did not choose these elected officials. The ability to face ones' mistakes and correct them does not mean that one has a lack of responsibility...quite the opposite!
Shapley wrote: I think it is telling that those of us believe in commitments, who believe in responsibility for one's actions, and who believe in responsibility, are generally the ones who favour restrictions on abortion and completing the mission in Iraq.
Thank you, I decline to be included in your generality.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]