Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
abkad
Is this you? Claim Profile »
8 ヶ月 ago
in Can You Vote for Obama? on BeDeviant.com | THINK DIFFERENTLY
I should add, I don't necessarily think that it is unreasonable for a mother to accept the burden of giving birth to a child, but I do think that any person who believes that the embryo/fetus/child/potential has the right to life should also realize that there is a trade-off between this right and the rights of the mother. Maybe not an unreasonable one, but it's still a trade-off nonetheless and the arguments should be made with this in mind. Disregarding these rights will not win any points for those who call for the criminalization of abortion.
8 ヶ月 ago
in Can You Vote for Obama? on BeDeviant.com | THINK DIFFERENTLY
Chadley, that's not entirely true. Sometimes we do "make laws based on minimalizing the effects of bad things." In fact there are a number of countries which have reduced the overall use of drugs by allowing it to be legal and shaping the laws to prevent their use. If we minimized the negative effects of drug use on individual users and on society, is this not a legitimate strategy when we find that criminalization isn't working?
Mind you, I say this as someone who has never used illegal drugs, including marijuana, in my life and abhors them.
Now, how is it not pro-life to say "looking at the facts, we should drastically reduce the number of abortions in a pragmatic way that will actually make a difference?" I don't think someone who ignores pragmatic solutions to reduce abortions is pro-life.
In regards to whether abortion is a moral issue or a rights issue, it is most certainly both. It is also extremely complex in both areas. It is not enough to say that the embryo/fetus/child/potential has the right to life and ignore the fact that a mother who cannot legally seek an abortion, right or wrong, is being required by her government to take on certain burdens in giving birth to a child within her body.
What I appreciate so much about Obama is that he is not interested in oversimplifying these issues.
Mind you, I say this as someone who has never used illegal drugs, including marijuana, in my life and abhors them.
Now, how is it not pro-life to say "looking at the facts, we should drastically reduce the number of abortions in a pragmatic way that will actually make a difference?" I don't think someone who ignores pragmatic solutions to reduce abortions is pro-life.
In regards to whether abortion is a moral issue or a rights issue, it is most certainly both. It is also extremely complex in both areas. It is not enough to say that the embryo/fetus/child/potential has the right to life and ignore the fact that a mother who cannot legally seek an abortion, right or wrong, is being required by her government to take on certain burdens in giving birth to a child within her body.
What I appreciate so much about Obama is that he is not interested in oversimplifying these issues.
8 ヶ月 ago
in Can You Vote for Obama? on BeDeviant.com | THINK DIFFERENTLY
I am sad to say that much of what that Princeton professor refers to is a terrible distortion of Obama's actual views and record. Particularly distorted are his claims about Obama voting to deprive infants of medical care. In this specific case, Obama simply voted against a terrible bill that would have simply restated that doctors must provide care to infants, as they are already required to do. Obama is absolutely, 100% against infanticide and I'm very offended by the smears against him on this issue. (more info is available here: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccus...)
Obama also opposed legislation which would ban partial birth abortions because there were no provisions whatsoever for the health of the mother. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to say that a woman must accept a death sentence simply because her abortion is classified as "partial birth."
As far as the infamous quote about Obama not wanting his daughters to be "punished with a baby" I think that his point was terribly misinterpreted. I think it should be clear that he was responding to those who frame teen pregnancy as if it were a punishment for those who are irresponsible. Clearly, a man who chose to father two young daughters doesn't see children as a punishment.
The fact is when you compare the two candidates, bar none, Barack Obama will do more to reduce abortions than John McCain. He does believe that abortion is wrong, but it is obvious that there is no one, simple solution to stopping it from happening. Therefore, Barack Obama supports better, comprehensive sex-ed programs in the schools, expanded access to education for the poor, better health care for children and families, and general prevention of abortion.
John McCain does not support the programs that will prevent abortion and simply does not have any authority to make it illegal. If he attempts to pack the courts in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, he would set a dangerous standard for the type of litmus test that Americans have always rejected in similar situations.
The real question here is "Do you want a president who will reduce the number of abortions, or do you want someone who claims to be against abortion, but will do nothing to stop it?"
So, of course, I'll be voting for Obama.
Obama also opposed legislation which would ban partial birth abortions because there were no provisions whatsoever for the health of the mother. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to say that a woman must accept a death sentence simply because her abortion is classified as "partial birth."
As far as the infamous quote about Obama not wanting his daughters to be "punished with a baby" I think that his point was terribly misinterpreted. I think it should be clear that he was responding to those who frame teen pregnancy as if it were a punishment for those who are irresponsible. Clearly, a man who chose to father two young daughters doesn't see children as a punishment.
The fact is when you compare the two candidates, bar none, Barack Obama will do more to reduce abortions than John McCain. He does believe that abortion is wrong, but it is obvious that there is no one, simple solution to stopping it from happening. Therefore, Barack Obama supports better, comprehensive sex-ed programs in the schools, expanded access to education for the poor, better health care for children and families, and general prevention of abortion.
John McCain does not support the programs that will prevent abortion and simply does not have any authority to make it illegal. If he attempts to pack the courts in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, he would set a dangerous standard for the type of litmus test that Americans have always rejected in similar situations.
The real question here is "Do you want a president who will reduce the number of abortions, or do you want someone who claims to be against abortion, but will do nothing to stop it?"
So, of course, I'll be voting for Obama.
1 年 ago
in Return to Any Redbox Feature a Problem for Some on Inside Redbox
Honestly, I don't understand why everyone feels that Redbox should receive no blame whatsoever in this situation.
Redbox introduced a feature that has had unintended consequences. For the sake of their own company, their customers, and their own moral responsibility, they should make sure their customers understand where to return their DVD's. If they do not, at the very least they will see their inventory lost and their customers angry.
For this particular vendor, he invested in a business when Redbox was nowhere near his location, and the consequences of Redbox policies could not be foreseen. It is absurd to suggest that he needs to spend a fortune on upgrades to his equipment when Redbox could easily send out new signage or change the machine display for the entire nation with a few mouse clicks.
In the meantime, Redbox customers are actually inflicting damage upon the vendors machines, according to the letter. The potential for funds lost due to downtime and his own unhappy customers will not be recouped by keeping the extra DVDs. They may be complete fools, but it really sounds like people are trying to return their DVDs and angrily jamming them into the machine.
Also, keep in mind that putting up a sign that says "This is not a Redbox" would work pretty effectively as advertising for the competition, which means that such signs are not a reasonable expectation. Perhaps he could say "This machine only accepts Brand X DVDs" but this may not be enough to resolve the problem considering how dumb these people have already shown themselves to be.
Redbox should push a few clicks and update their signs and website to clearly state that "Return to any Redbox" means Redbox only.
Redbox introduced a feature that has had unintended consequences. For the sake of their own company, their customers, and their own moral responsibility, they should make sure their customers understand where to return their DVD's. If they do not, at the very least they will see their inventory lost and their customers angry.
For this particular vendor, he invested in a business when Redbox was nowhere near his location, and the consequences of Redbox policies could not be foreseen. It is absurd to suggest that he needs to spend a fortune on upgrades to his equipment when Redbox could easily send out new signage or change the machine display for the entire nation with a few mouse clicks.
In the meantime, Redbox customers are actually inflicting damage upon the vendors machines, according to the letter. The potential for funds lost due to downtime and his own unhappy customers will not be recouped by keeping the extra DVDs. They may be complete fools, but it really sounds like people are trying to return their DVDs and angrily jamming them into the machine.
Also, keep in mind that putting up a sign that says "This is not a Redbox" would work pretty effectively as advertising for the competition, which means that such signs are not a reasonable expectation. Perhaps he could say "This machine only accepts Brand X DVDs" but this may not be enough to resolve the problem considering how dumb these people have already shown themselves to be.
Redbox should push a few clicks and update their signs and website to clearly state that "Return to any Redbox" means Redbox only.
