want to know who you should vote for? this site might help. here's the top 5 candidates for me:
Gravel 28
Abortion Rights, Kyoto, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage
Kucinich 27
Abortion Rights, No Child Left Behind, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Net Neutrality, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage
Obama 21
Abortion Rights, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Net Neutrality
Paul 20
ANWR Drilling, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Minimum Wage Increase, Universal Healthcare
Edwards 19
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Net Neutrality, Iran - Military Action
i'm not sure who this gravel is, but i guess i need to look into it.
you can also check out this flickr site that gives a table on where people stand for easy comparison.
although, i don't know how accurate it is. it says all but two of the democrats are for universal health care, a position i haven't heard them all take.
linkage thanks to boing boing.
20 comments:
i think i may have entered the abortion rights one wrong though. mainly because i'm against it and i think four of the top four are for it in some manner.
Gravel is the guy from Alaska.
Oh Ed, people arent for abortion, they are for a woman's right to choose. C'mon man. :)
or, maybe they're for abortion. it's not like i said they're pro-death.
Everyone is pro-death though. I mean, if you're gonna equate abortion and death, especially chemical abortion, you might as well call people who fight cancer or take antibiotics pro-death. Shit, people who drink are pro-death for each brain cell they wipe out.
Pro-choice encompasses a lot more than just the right to an abortion. Things like birth control, the morning after pill, etc. It's comprehensive. Many anti-choicers would have you believe otherwise or would equate all of those things with murder.
1. i said they (these candidates) were for abortion rights. or, possibly that they were for abortion. it all depends on how you understand my use of the word "it" in the first comment. it would make sense that the "it" refers to abortion rights, as i has said that i may have mis-entered this category.
2. i realize that the pro-life movement includes people that are against all "non-natural" forms of birth control. it also includes people of very moderate position that are only against abortion. in fact, i frequently mention this in conversations with you, adam. this is not to say that you learned this from me, but that you're supplying info that you, kasey and i have all discussed. hey, if you're just throwing it out there for the world to know, fine.
however, i feel that using the term anti-choice skews the intention of the overall group. just like calling pro-choice pro-death. is the issue for them whether or not you have the right to choose, or whether or not you are terminating life? their answer is the latter. in your opinion, it may be the former, although i won't speak for you. "Many anti-choicers would have you believe otherwise or would equate all of those things with murder." well, let me retort: many pro-deathers would have you believe that the pro-life movement is for things like: total elimination of birth control, murder of abortion doctors, and that homosexuality and abortion caused hurricane katrina, 9/11 and deaths of soldiers in iraq all as punishment from God. or should i say, is the fringe many?
Nothing personal Ed, I was just throwing my two cents in.
Of course the terms we use to frame a debate skew it. That's the whole point of my usage.
The thing is, growing up, I always heard the debate framed as pro-life and pro-choice. Essentially, that's an impossible debate. The very definition of being pro-anything means that the opposition is anti-something. If someone is pro-life, the opposition is by definition, anti-life. If someone is pro-choice, the opposition is by definition, anti-choice. As much as we'd all like to eat our cake, alas, we can only have it.
My position, self-defined as pro-choice, means that those who disagree with that position, are anti-choice. To deny other humans the ability to make decisions that affect their health, their family, and their finances is to be anti-choice, and in my opinion, quite oppressive.
As for your second point, I'd say my "many" is bigger than the "many/fringe" you described. But that's just me. =)
but does being pro-cat mean you're anti-dog?
Not necessarily. It just means you aren't anti-cat. =P
On a side note I also got Gravel, Pauls, Edwards and Obama as top picks
i guess i'm not anti-life then.
Nope, you're anti-choice.
Or if you don't like being that, you should redefine your position in a much more specific manner so people like me who disagree with you, don't get lumped into an anti-life position merely by opposing you.
I should think you wouldn't believe me to be anti-life anyway. I do oppose the death sentence after all.
did i call you anti-life?
is some one anti-choice when then are against euthanasia?
why is it not anti-choice when one opposes state sponsored killing? does the state not have a choice?
Damn do I hate word verification and when it eats my comments.
Here are my short answers because I don't feel like typing it all out again.
Not explicitly.
Yes.
It's a stretch to use representative-states in a debate on individual positions. Technically, the state has no choice and represents the people.
not explicitly? not even implicitly did i call you anti-life. the closest thing to this would be my statement that framing the sides as pro-choice/anti-choice is the same as framing it pro-life/pro-death, and how these labels skew the intentions of the represented groups.
you have, and continue to do so, framed it as pro-life/anti-life, as well as pro-choice/anti-choice. this severe dichotomy does not have to exist in our minds. we are able to understand that these are only titles and in this debate the opposite of pro-choice is pro-life. it seems counterproductive to discussion to move outside of the conventional terms and start calling one side anti-choice or pro-death. really, how do you feel when someone calls you pro-death? i know it's not the label you choose to use for yourself, so i'm assuming that you don't feel it adequately represents your position nor appreciate it being applied to you.
as i stated before, the pro-life movement in general isn't based on denying someone a choice, although that may be the result. it is based in protecting what they understand as life ("is the issue for them whether or not you have the right to choose, or whether or not you are terminating life? their answer is the latter"). in my opinion, and in my life, pro-life just as much applies to sex education, birth control (including the double dose morning after pill), family planning, pre-natal care, women's health issues and overall health services. pro-life for me also includes my stance against the death penalty, my stance against war, my belief that as a society we need to work towards better quality of life for people. but, the greater group also includes some that have a much, much more restrictive definition. who's the majority? well, that's open for speculation. i know i've read articles on the issue that talk about how the fringe elements (not the numerical or ideological majority) are pissed @ the mainstream prolife groups because they aren't radical enough and aren't pushing hard enough for complete bans. so, if i'm going to speculate, i'll go with the moderates being the majority within the group, as with the case of most americans. the majority of people that are pro-life aren't against birth control and beyond but are against a surgical procedure that they view as the termination of a life. furthermore, i acknowledge that my position is fringe within the pro-life camp because i'm including much more than the moderate position does.
"the pro-life movement in general isn't based on denying someone a choice, although that may be the result. it is based in protecting what they understand as life"
I don't think I truly understand your position on the issue. Are you against abortion in general, certain kinds, specific reasons to have one?
Suppose the mother's life is in jeopardy, the doctor can save the baby but not her or the reverse. Who is more important?
Suppose a family has four kids and the father's vasectomy fails or a condom breaks and to have a fifth kid would be financially detrimental to the six people already existing? Does the value of the fetus outweigh those other lives?
does the value of one life outweigh the value of another? or, is all life worth valuing and trying to protect?
That's too simplistic. Life is all about weighing decisions. There are instances in which one cannot protect all life.
Even you have chosen a life that by it's very design neglects many of the world's ills.
You're just evading the questions.
so, i know a guy who's family budget was stretched very thin. he and his wife had several children and decided on a vasectomy. it did not take for one reason or another. they ended up with a "surprise." what did they do? well, they had to make life changes to better accommodate their increased family size. it was a change for all of them. i don't know their family position on abortion, or whether or not the considered it. but, i do know that no one died because of the pregnancy, even though having a child was financially detrimental to the family.
Post a Comment