Richard Nixon on a recently-released tape, sounding pretty reasonable if you’re like me and hate reading the middle part of quotes.
nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/po … on.html?hp
~ Flare
Well, even though I think abortion should be legal up until a point, and there are cases where it needs to be allowed (such as the woman’s life is in danger if the pregnancy continues, and perhaps even rape), I sorta can understand the warped logic of the time of there needing to be an option of abortion if there was “OMG sexual relations between a black and a white!” which resulted in a pregnancy, because of the racism back then. Oh gawd, don’t take that the wrong way, I actually think mixed kids are beautiful. In a way the statement is progressive because it supports abortion in certain circumstances, but then Nixon goes and says that it should be used simply because of the race of the parents, and takes two steps back. It’s also kind of neat of a former president saying that, then it 2008 a president being elected who is the child of a mixed marriage, no?
More like an irony, really. 
Yeah, not in an intelligent debating mood right now; just posted this here to inform you guys of the article and hope it would rose up some meaningful discussions in the forums (don’t think we have that for some years, not any long ones anyway).
But, to put our my own point of view, I heard a lot of both good things and bad ones about Richard Nixon. He’s kinda distant to me, considering that he’s an American president living thousands of miles (and probably a decade or so) away from me. But, what I heard most notably is the notorious Watergate incident, which I also knows little about.
Regarding this kind of abortion, if I want to be moral (or maybe I’m being logical) about it, I would say it’s entirely wrong, even in cases of rape. Taking a life away is still murder, no matter if the person’s conscious of the murder or not and it doesn’t matter if you don’t want the baby (you could just give up the baby after he/she is born if you don’t want him/her). Going through the danger of birth is certainly a factor to consider, but in Singapore, at least, if you murder someone, even if it’s out of saving your own life, it’s considered murder or, at the least, manslaughter and you will be prosecuted. That’s why abortion in our country is ILLEGAL. Strictly.
Another example to consider:
If you are facing starvation because you are held captive, would you kill off the other prisoners just to keep yourself alive? Yes, I’m talking about the scenario as depicted in the 1981 film, My Bloody Valentine (see, you do learn stuff from movies). I know it’s quite farfetched, but it’s the same scenario; taking a life just to serve to your advantage. Logically, that’s just wrong.
~ Flare
I suppose your views on abortion would depend on whether you think life begins at conception, or whether it’s when the baby forms essential body parts to live. One of the crucial points to me of when a foetus should be allowed to be aborted is whether it can feel pain or not.
Well, what’s more important? A mother who has a life already with family and friends who care about her? Possibly other children to look after? Wouldn’t it be more important to protect her life first and foremost, even if it means abortion? What about murdering animals - is that wrong too? It’s still taking away a life.
There are lots of things that are illegal in other countries (going outside without a headscarf, kissing in public), but that doesn’t make it wrong. Why does Singapore still use the death penalty?
I have never been in that situation before so I wouldn’t know what I would do. You mean kill them so I can eat them, like in Alive? (Well, I suppose that person was already dead anyway). I would like to say that I wouldn’t kill someone to sustain myself because it’s wrong and I don’t think I could stomach it, but if your life is on the line and starvation can make you do things you wouldn’t normally do, then that’s always a possibility. I’m not sure how apt that comparison is though, because a foetus, depending on the age, may not even be able to feel pain while an adult almost certainly would.
Yeah, it may not feel pain, but it’s a life. Life is important. Life is beautiful, despite all the pains that come along with it. That’s why taking that away is always considered illegal. I would explain more on it, but I’m kinda caught up with something now.
I just can’t see how taking someone’s life, on any kind of level, is morally right.
~ Flare
Nice. Anyways, everything he said is right, except for the middle of the quote (racist.)
I think that abortion should be illegal in all but a very few cases. I don’t think someone should be allowed to have an abortion even if they were raped. The mother had something horrible done to her yes, but is it right to end a new life because it inconveniences you? Even if you don’t want the child, at least you could allow it to live and let someone else adopt it. Who knows, the child might even save the mother’s life one day if she ever needed an organ transplant.
However, if the mother’s life is at risk because of the baby (a very rare occurrence by the way), then the mother should be allowed to decide what to do. I would guess however that the mother would rather risk her own life than kill her child in 99% of the cases.
I hope all of that made sense. 
He said what? I have a hard time beleiving that. Wasn’t Nixon all for civil rights? Or am I thinking of someone else?
I agree that abortion should not be birth control. “Whoops! I was stupid and didn’t use protection! I guess I should end this innocent life just because raising a child would be a total cramp of my style!” That whole “its my body!” thing is just crap. Uh, no, it’s not your body, it’s someone elses body that happens to be in yours. But if she was raped, she wasn’t stupid and it was never her choice. I guess she could have it aborted, but I would be strongly against it.
I have nothing against mixed children (obviously). My friend’s stepdad is African American (her mom is white).
Yes, Rachel, Obama is a mixed child. Still, according to all his “fangirls” he’s ALL black and ALL them and ALL for the “hood” (which of course is a lie since he grew up in the upper middle class).
Obama is as white as black, yeah. I don’t know why they call him “The first black president of the USA”.
By the way, Nixon was being a racist obsioulsy.
I think abortion should be allowed up until a point. The whole “it’s a life” reasoning will work for me when someone defines life.
Abortion must’nt be used as a protection method, obviously. If someone thinks that the doesn’t know what abortion or a protection method is. Anyway, I think abortion morally works the same as a protection method. If someone practises abortion someone will no be birth. If you use protection method someone will not be birth. It’s the same. We could talk about determinism, particles, causality, Richard Dawkins and Dr Manhattan here but I don0t feel like it.
About the rape. Imagine you have an accident. You wake uo in a hospital. You find you’re connected with an strange machine to anocher patient. The doctor tells you that they had to do that to maintain the other patient alive. You could stay there for six months and let him live. Or you could go and he would die. What happens? You CAN decide. But the hospital and the doctors and nobody must not tell you what you have to do.
Laws shouldn’t be created to infiltrate in everybody’s internal logic and private life.
And… even if you forbide abortion… there will be abortions. This is not 1984, and it’s not going to be -I guess we can’t be as organizated as despicted in that book- so…
And this is why I would kept abortion free. Until a point of pregnancy. What point? Choose deliberately. There is no other thing you can do about it.
PS: We’re going to die, despite the difficult posibility of you and me being here… and that makes us the lucky ones.
Luke: It’s that kind of selfish thinking that results in the self-destruction of mankind. If many Singaporeans rebel against the moral values for practical reasons everytime, we would live in a very tragic country. Every single shred of life is precious, no matter how you define it, no matter if there’s any pain inflicted. I’m not saying that everyone should sacrifice their lives to save other lives, but it is completely selfish if you are just going through abortion because your weak mind cannot handle the pressure of pregnancy. If you could physically go through it and you abort the baby, no matter how many months have passed since the pregnancy, that’s murder.
As a great philosopher once said, “Taking a life has many reasons, excuses and motives, but saving one doesn’t require a logical answer.”
It’s just sick to go through abortion under such circumstances. I would be glad if my country issue a death penalty for abortion. Too bad that isn’t so - I was mistaken. There is only a penalty for abortions that are issued in conditions that do not fit the code of law (rape victim, health conditions, etc.), but to me, a rape victim could also go through the birth, no matter how tragic her situation might be.
~ Flare
That’s murder? Protection methods are murder, also?
You completely misundertood some of my points. I said “up unitl a pont of pregnancy”. You say “no matter how many months have passed since the pregnancy”. Man that’s murdering.
And what do you know about the presssure I cand handle or not. I can handle it by the way. But I don’t want any law to come in and decide saying that. What do the people know about other people?
I agrre with him.
You realize what you said? I’ll give you the oportunity to reconsider what you typed.
Death penalty of any kind wtf? Death penalty never has made any sense to me.
Define your so called ‘protection methods;’ I’m unclear of what’s your argument here.
It is in my opinion that once a life is created in the course of… say a few months of pregnancy (maybe even earlier), destroying it is a little sickening and unacceptable.
As for the pressure, I wasn’t referring to you in particular but everyone in general. If someone’s able to take it and he/she aborts the baby, it can be considered as murder.
Yes, I realized what I said, and I’m not going to change a word of it. The law is just. If anything, it’s the humans that create the wrong sets of law that’s flawed. In my opinion, a death penalty, though it would also destroy another life, is necessary to (I wouldn’t say threaten, but more like warn) people not to do such a thing. The law keeps people in place and civil. I never really supported America’s freedom of speech or freedom of right… whatever. If Americans want to do whatever they want because they want to practice their freedom, then they might as well have a law-less country.
~ Flare
I meant contraception methods. I din’t know what the word was.
I, I… I just disagree with all that. People are going to abort anyway. You support death penalty? You don’t like freedom of speech? My country was that way a few years ago. I can assure you it is not a good idea.
It is that scared thinking why humankind destroys itself. “Oh we need protection… oh no we need to be organizated… oh no we need to be threatened be dead and continue doing the same… oh no we can’t live in peace without opression!”
You’re adding law to a thing that would work without law.
Re-think death penalty. We all will die and the result will be the same whatever our life has been. We’ll be dead. The why bother on murdering people? The thing tha should be done is modify the society to create a society where crime doesn’t exist. Societies like that have existed the majority of humankind history. Why allow crime and horrible things to exist and add to that oppression? Isn’t that stupid? Remember, the people act like an only silly person. You hurt this silly person but he continues doing the same. Why don’t just take the rocks away form it’s path so he can’t bump into them?
Okay, then. Remove all law on abortion. Let every woman in the world abort to their will, then have s** again, then abort again, THEN HAVE S**UAL INTERACTION AGAIN, THEN ABORT AGAIN! Is that what you want? Have life being treated like dirt? With such disrespect?
~ Flare
I said use contraception methods. I just said I 'd let abort up until a reasonable point, when the fetus or the kid or whatever is able to survive out of the mother. Please read my comments.
And I think I’m being more respecteful to life than you. You allow death penalty. You don0’t like freedom of speech. In a place like that I could be sent to the electric chair for saying what I’m thinkibg. isn’t that unrespecteful to life? Maybe you’re not sure what a phenomena like life on earth deserves.
PS: with the no need of law I was referring to the system itself.
We don’t use the electric chair here. You commit murder, you get the nook on the neck, suffering for that half a minute so that you pay for your crime. And don’t tell me whether if I respect life. That’s a great insult to me. I never said you never respect life, I asked if you would rather have life being treated with disrespect.
In Chinese, we have this phrase that goes, “beating is caring, scolding is loving,” something like that. By using force to restrain people from hurting others and themselves is a disrespect to life? I never said a death penalty for commiting abortion is absolutely necessary; I’m just saying that it annoys me because the law is a little bit lenient when it comes to restraining healthy people from abortion. If retraining people from acting like barbaric freaks who want to do whatever the F they want is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
~ Flare
Though I am against quick abortion when you were stupid and your stupidity caused a child, I would like to bring up an arguement someone (I think it was FONY) told me that was quite good.
As with many cases, the parent of an unwanted baby would be completly incapable of raising a child well. The child then may be neglected, abused, or put in foster care, all of which can ruin a life and turn someone to crime, gangs, and and overall bad lifestyle. What is better, aborting the child to remove that possiblility, or letting it live and run the risk of it living a horrible life?
And the truth is, there are more children waiting to be adopted then there are those willing to adopt. Plus, once a child gets a little older, their chances of being adopted are slim. People would be quicker to adopt a 2 year old then a 12 year old.
I have a friend who’s mother put her up for adoption when she was a baby. (she was in the seventh grade when she got pregnat with her) Though she was luckily adopted by a very nice couple and lives a very good life, she once told me about how much she hates her birth mom, despite never knowing her. She told me she was “scum” and that she hated her with a passion. Now, imagine a child with that hatred inside, but doesn’t have nice parents or a lot of friends to support her. That could be a very bad case.
What you are referring to, Rac_Rules is, in my opinion really, not really good enough of a reason to abort a baby. Whether if a child could live a good life or not is not really decided by you. Crap happens and if you are just going to abort babies because of a judgment you made that could be right or wrong, it wouldn’t be fair; it wouldn’t be justice. If the baby would turn out to live a really good life after you put him/her up for abortion, but you have already abort him/her, are you going to be responsible for it? No, because you don’t know that it’s going to happen. It’s a very gray line there. We couldn’t really say if it’s right or wrong, fair or just; we are all humans and we could only use a system that restrains our non-sentient flaw as much as possible to save as many lives as we can.
~ Flare
So you do agree that there is a grey area with the issue of abortion, pertaining to what point in the pregnancy it would be un-acceptable from that point to get an abortion? Am I right in saying that from that point, whatever it may be, or earlier, it may be ok in some circumstances to get one then? Just clarifying.
Also, I’m very surprised that you are opposed to abortion, but still support the death penalty. If you value all life, then you should be opposed to the death penalty, I would think. You can still stop someone from murdering someone else or doing harm to others without taking away their life, such as jail for life or even solitary confinement.
I’m going to use your country as an example, sorry, but in Singapore they give the death penalty for drug trafficking. How is drug trafficking a justifiably capital punishment offence? If someone chooses to take drugs, supplied inadvertently by the drug trafficker, how is that a crime on the same level as murdering someone? To go even further, in Singapore if you are in possesion of more than 30g of cocaine, they will be given a mandatory death sentence. I don’t know how much drug a drug dealer usually carries, but how would a person taking drugs themselves harm anybody else? To put to death a murderer I can understand (even though I disagree… I think), but a recreational drug user…?
As for a mandotory death sentence for women getting an abortion, again, that would boil down to when life begins. A two-week old fetus having to be “aborted” because if the pregnancy continues, say if it was growing in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus, is much different from aborting a 20-week old fetus because the mother chooses to, or doesn’t think they could handle it. I can understand the deterrent capital punishment would be, maybe, but I think thorough sexual and contraceptive education programs may work better, and is at least a humane way of dealing with the problem of “oopsie” abortions.
My main point is that this world isn’t black and white, but varying shades of grey, which is why debates like these are so interesting. Btw, don’t take my points personally. I really like debating and looking at things from all points of view, as well as reading others’.
Well, I’m not an ethnic minority, but as far as I know, people of mixed race will usually identify with the group that is the ethnicity of the minority parent, and be accepted by that group, but not in all cases. Probably since those who are traditionally minorities have more dominant genes and pass on physical characteristics that “overpower” the more recessive, European physical traits. So even if you’re only “half-black”, you’re still “black”, so to speak…
See, that’s the thing you don’t understand. That’s what separates us; Westerns and Asians. Most of the time, we practice this kind of tough love, which, in a way, I must say is very noble and honorable because in this sense, we take responsibility for all citizens. I would love to believe that America is peaceful with its free system, but take a look between the two. In America, how many hobos and homeless people are out there? I’ll bet that for every 10 hobo in America, 4-6 of them would be kicked away and ignored. It’s not the world that’s cruel; it’s your country because of the practices you people take up upon. If you have used tougher methods of restrain, none of that would have happened. Being nice to people, taking up responsibilities for actions would be a very common day-to-day action. This tough love is absolutely necessary.
Of course, no matter how I explain, in the end, the next day, our views will still be separated, you would still disagree, the truth is still not revealed, so, no offense, but this is getting a little bit pointless and frustrating. It’s giving me a headache and a heartache.
To take an example, look at the Evolution and Creation thread. Several threads later and here it is still today.
~ Flare