I have no answer because these are nothing but loade questions and used by people who made up their mind that they cant be answered
#7 is hilarious, equating things like CEO pay raises, Criminal labor costs and other things to removing them from the country, despite the fact THEIR STUFF IS STILL SOLD HERE
http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/20-questions-liberals-cant-answer/ All I can say is I know that this was written by a young conservative with no idea what he is talking about. Number 3 is even more head scratching.
1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
2) If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?
4) What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?
6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
11) Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
12) If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
19) If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
I'm going to get a warning in early with a thread like this, before the discussion starts. Keep it clean or else warnings will fly and the thread will get locked up.
Verviedi wrote: You're on the Internet. Prepare for the left wing to descend upon you and call you a bigot fascist nazi capitalist.
Duck and cover, for there is no help here.
You made extremely good points (such as 15), but people are going to scream at you for using "strawmans" and being "regressive reactionary oppressor".
Oh wait. You're one of them too. You're one of them! You're one of them! Nooooo!
Actually Hotsauceman1 disagrees with all of the points the young conservative is trying to bring up. Oh wait, you already noticed that.
FYI Hotsauce, Conservatives actually do give more to charities than Liberals/Democrats/Leftists/etc by a wide margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: I'm going to get a warning in early with a thread like this, before the discussion starts. Keep it clean or else warnings will fly and the thread will get locked up.
I really doubt this thread will make it more than two pages. Vocal posters here are largely left leaning. This is going to turn into another conservative bashing thread like all of them already do.
i must say that i'm not a liberal. i'm a revolutionary communist. but it wouldn't matter - those aren't a serious list of questions unless you're an idiot (either questioning or answering). there's a couple that are ok, but mostly the questions are designed to get incomplete or unsatisfactory answers. this is done by creating straw man arguments, comparing two things that arent unrelated, or asking questions of the type "when did you stop beating your wife". and it only requires a moderately intelligent person to take these questions apart (though that would leave them open to accusations of not answering the questions.
personally i would advise people of all political persuasions to ignore stuff like this unless it;s a friendly debate with people you know who will listen, debate, and ultimately not hate you for your different opinion (and you them).
Verviedi wrote: You're on the Internet. Prepare for the left wing to descend upon you and call you a bigot fascist nazi capitalist.
Duck and cover, for there is no help here.
You made extremely good points (such as 15), but people are going to scream at you for using "strawmans" and being "regressive reactionary oppressor".
Oh wait. You're one of them too. You're one of them! You're one of them! Nooooo!
Actually Hotsauceman1 disagrees with all of the points the young conservative is trying to bring up. Oh wait, you already noticed that.
FYI Hotsauce, Conservatives actually do give more to charities than Liberals/Democrats/Leftists/etc by a wide margin.
I am liberal and I just gave to a charitie, and my cousin, who is conservative says charities are a waste of time.
Its all a matter of the individual person, Liberal and conservative does not automatically make someone a good/bad person.
Anecdotal evidence of two individuals is not pertinent when discussing the actions of entire communities. Of course there are Liberals that give and Conservatives that don't give.
Of course it anecdotal, but that question is poised to make all liberals look like hypocrites, when all it accomplices is insulting individuals and not looking at the broader picture.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at the idea of calling #15 an "extremely good point". It's a terrible argument that relies on blatant lying about abortion. Killing a blob of cells with less capacity for human thought/feelings/etc than a cockroach (which you gladly kill without hesitation) is not the same as killing a fully-developed human who may or may not be guilty of the crime you're killing them for.
And the rest of the questions aren't any better, they're all extremely weak arguments that even a brief amount of research into what liberals tend to believe would have answered. Perhaps if you think they're so good you should pick out which ones you think are the best so that we can explain why they're a joke?
I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being
Verviedi wrote: You're on the Internet. Prepare for the left wing to descend upon you and call you a bigot fascist nazi capitalist. Duck and cover, for there is no help here.
You made extremely good points (such as 15), but people are going to scream at you for using "strawmans" and being "regressive reactionary oppressor".
Oh wait. You're one of them too. You're one of them! You're one of them! Nooooo!
You know how you say "Duck and cover, for there is no help here"? Posts like yours are part of the problem. Immediately descending into a political thread with a comment about how the left wing is stupid isn't helpful, it only provokes flaming and anger, rather than reasoned discussion.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Of course it anecdotal, but that question is poised to make all liberals look like hypocrites, when all it accomplices is insulting individuals and not looking at the broader picture.
Of course, liberals on the other hand, would never stoop to such tactics.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being
Why is it funny? Whether you agree with it or not, it's not difficult to understand at all on a conceptual level.
insaniak wrote: Can I be anti-death penalty but still eat steak?
No. You must become vegan. Pro-death penalty must become vegan too, if that is any relief to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Yes. Animals are nonsapient, and should serve humanity as we are more highly evolved than them.
Also,
hotsauceman1 wrote: If it doesnt have a concept of death and what that entails beyond survival instinct. Which is why we dont kill chimps or elephants.
This thread makes me afraid now. I am likely going to be banned somehow if I decide to continue this conversation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If it doesnt have a concept of death and what that entails beyond survival instinct. Which is why we dont kill chimps or elephants.
How do we establish which animals have a concept of death?
Ah. So it's ok to kill living things so long as their mental faculties (insofar as we have the ability to judge them) fall below an arbitrary baseline that we ourselves created?
Seems legit.
...and should serve humanity as we are more highly evolved than them.
Why does being 'less evolved' (whatever that means) automatically relegate something to the roll of servant? Or lunch?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being
If you can find a baby guilty of any of the crimes people are put on dearh row for, then your point has some merit.
But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?
Relapse wrote: If you can find a baby guilty of any of the crimes people are put on dearh row for, then your point has some merit.
Ok, I like that argument: killing innocent people is really bad. Therefore, since we can not eliminate the risk of executing innocent people for crimes they didn't commit (or executing people who are guilty of the same crime that gets life in prison for another person, due to racism), we should abolish the death penalty.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?
The bible doesn't forbid killing. It forbids unlawful killing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible?
What? The bible is full of killing people. Just after getting the 10 commandment, Moses has to execute a bunch of people because they did worship a golden calf just after getting the ten commandments…
Which is making it pretty shallow, really.
“Thou shalt not do unlawful stuff. What is unlawful? When, what you should not do is unlawful. Thou shalt know that asking about circular definition is unlawful.”
"I looked upon the field and beheld an army of straw men. And the army arrayed against them stood frozen, for they too were made of straw. In silent accusation these armies stood, and sense and truth were as thick upon the scene as the flesh upon the battlefield."
hotsauceman1 wrote: I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being
hotsauceman1 wrote: But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?
I know I didn't plan on saying anything else in this thread, but what the heck. Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: "I looked upon the field and beheld an army of straw men. And the army arrayed against them stood frozen, for they too were made of straw. In silent accusation these armies stood, and sense and truth were as thick upon the scene as the flesh upon the battlefield."
It took me acouple seconds to be able to breath again after that!
hotsauceman1 wrote: But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?
I know I didn't plan on saying anything else in this thread, but what the heck. Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".
Ok, but death penalty isnt self defence, it is revenge killing
The death penalty isn't necessarily revenge killing, because the victim of the criminal isn't the one who makes the decision. The state makes the decision, for whatever reason they might do so (criminal too dangerous to be left alive, don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life, the law says they have to, etc.)
Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.
don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,
Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.
the law says they have to, etc.
Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.
I'm not trying to argue these reasons are good or bad, I am just saying that the death penalty isn't necessarily meted out for revenge. Revenge would be if the victim or someone close to the victim killed the criminal for the crime they committed. The victim doesn't ever get the chance to legally do so. They are in effect removed from that equation through the judicial system.
Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.
don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,
Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.
the law says they have to, etc.
Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.
There are several cases on the books, I'd dare say that approach or exceed wrongful execution where released convicted killers go on to commit more murders.
I've had some good conversations with d-usa on this and would be willing to say that I would consider life without possibility of release, depending on the nature of the killing. Possibly even redefine what constitutes a murder charge.
A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
Modern Muslim terrorists are socially very conservative.
If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
No
How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?
"By their deeds shall ye know them."
What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
That is to be determined by society.
Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?
Firstly that isn't actually true, secondly it is possible for a smaller slice of a larger pie to be larger than a larger slice of a smaller pie.
Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
Pro-choice. No.
If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
Do you think corporations are good for putting people out of work?
How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
If you need to drive 100 miles and pay for 90 miles worth of petrol, will you arrive at your destination?
If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
Show me the studies.
Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
Things already have changed dramatically. Did you not notice the Global Financial Crisis?
Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
We don't all agree that that idea.
If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
What is God's definition of marriage?
In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
Yes.
If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
Under US law both parties have to pay their costs.
How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
Please see debate about abortion.
A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
Prove it. Henry Ford didn't have a problem with raising his minimum wage.
The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
We can adequately explain and model those changes, that is kind of the point...
We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
Is it actually happening? If it is, why should government be the same as popular music?
If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
Define the middle class and show what level of tax they are willing to pay.
If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
Please see Pai Cosmetics, the dominant female only luxury cosmetic form.
These questions are generally very poor and simplistic and presented in a combative spirit.
Of course...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Of course it anecdotal, but that question is poised to make all liberals look like hypocrites, when all it accomplices is insulting individuals and not looking at the broader picture.
You should feel bad for using it as a foundation for discussion. The sooner people try to answer the strongest questions of their political opposites the sooner we will learn why people so similar can disagree so violently on important topics. I believe this will, if nothing else, remind us to look for the reflections of ourselves in our 'political' 'enemies'.
Kilkrazy wrote: A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
Modern Muslim terrorists are socially very conservative.
If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
No
How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?
"By their deeds shall ye know them."
What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
That is to be determined by society.
Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?
Firstly that isn't actually true, secondly it is possible for a smaller slice of a larger pie to be larger than a larger slice of a smaller pie.
Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
Pro-choice. No.
If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
Do you think corporations are good for putting people out of work?
How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
If you need to drive 100 miles and pay for 90 miles worth of petrol, will you arrive at your destination?
If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
Show me the studies.
Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
Things already have changed dramatically. Did you not notice the Global Financial Crisis?
Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
We don't all agree that that idea.
If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
What is God's definition of marriage?
In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
Yes.
If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
Under US law both parties have to pay their costs.
How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
Please see debate about abortion.
A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
Prove it. Henry Ford didn't have a problem with raising his minimum wage.
The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
We can adequately explain and model those changes, that is kind of the point...
We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
Is it actually happening? If it is, why should government be the same as popular music?
If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
Define the middle class and show what level of tax they are willing to pay.
If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
Please see Pai Cosmetics, the dominant female only luxury cosmetic form.
wut?
As to the question if conservative give more than liberals? The answer... is 'who knows'.
There's so much debate / study on this that leads me to believe that it's ideologically agnostic.
As to the question if conservative give more than liberals? The answer... is 'who knows'.
There's so much debate / study on this that leads me to believe that it's ideologically agnostic.
I'd just add that liberal/conservative is about as false a dichotomy as you can find. Most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
It's a form of a fallacy called begging the question. The definition is that the conclusion (you're a douchebag) is included in the premise as a statement of fact used to justify the proposal/claim. It never actually presents any evidence or argument that you are in fact a douchebag, it just pretends that you are and goes from there.
Side note, I found this gem in the comments in a random news article:
We will not fix this issue with Reform or Cops wearing body cameras. Body Cameras will only give cops the ability to conduct unlawful search and seizure and create a narrative based on video footage. There was video footage of John Crawford and Rodney King, and you see how these two incidents turned out. Besides you can’t reform laws that allow white men not just cops (George Zimmerman) to kill unarmed Black Men whenever they FEEL threatened. We are now living in the Book of Revelations. I do agree with Darren Wilson's comments on one thing though. He probably did see a Demon when he shot Mike Brown. When you do something wrong to God's Chosen People you will see demons which basically a refection of Wilson's own image. Read Revelations 2.9 and more importantly read it literally. It is not a parable. Black Americans are not decedents of Africa, but rather Israel. Yes they've kept this a secret for over 400 years and their secret is about to be revealed. This is why everyone can feels there's something not quite right in the world. Kind of like the Matrix, for lack of a better example.
DarkLink wrote: I
Side note, I found this gem in the comments in a random news article:
We will not fix this issue with Reform or Cops wearing body cameras. Body Cameras will only give cops the ability to conduct unlawful search and seizure and create a narrative based on video footage. There was video footage of John Crawford and Rodney King, and you see how these two incidents turned out. Besides you can’t reform laws that allow white men not just cops (George Zimmerman) to kill unarmed Black Men whenever they FEEL threatened. We are now living in the Book of Revelations. I do agree with Darren Wilson's comments on one thing though. He probably did see a Demon when he shot Mike Brown. When you do something wrong to God's Chosen People you will see demons which basically a refection of Wilson's own image. Read Revelations 2.9 and more importantly read it literally. It is not a parable. Black Americans are not decedents of Africa, but rather Israel. Yes they've kept this a secret for over 400 years and their secret is about to be revealed. This is why everyone can feels there's something not quite right in the world. Kind of like the Matrix, for lack of a better example.
Whoa Rastafari!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had to look it up:
Revelations 2.9:
I know of your tribulation and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander you endure from self-styled Jews who are nothing other than members of Satan's assembly.
And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.
*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.
And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.
*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.
Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.
And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.
*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.
Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.
Very true.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think this is a good time to give out kudos to all the posters for keeping what could have been a nasty thread some well thought out entries.
Hordini wrote: Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.
Yes, and things like feeding the homeless are secular charity work being done by a religious organization. However, paying the salary of the preacher you listen to every sunday is no more of a charity donation than buying tickets to see your favorite band. The articles that were posted previously attempt to account for that and divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. And once you do that the difference between liberals and conservatives disappears. So what we can conclude is that the supposed "greater generosity" of conservatives is a myth, and the increased amount of "charity" donations is due almost entirely to conservatives spending more to fund their own religious activities.
Relapse wrote: Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".
I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible? Because remember that text is full of non-sense. We are talking super-hero whose super-strength comes from his hair level of nonsense.
Hordini wrote: Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.
Yes, and things like feeding the homeless are secular charity work being done by a religious organization. However, paying the salary of the preacher you listen to every sunday is no more of a charity donation than buying tickets to see your favorite band. The articles that were posted previously attempt to account for that and divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. And once you do that the difference between liberals and conservatives disappears. So what we can conclude is that the supposed "greater generosity" of conservatives is a myth, and the increased amount of "charity" donations is due almost entirely to conservatives spending more to fund their own religious activities.
The HuffPo article didn't divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. It just made a distinction between religious charities (which included churches) and secular charities.
Relapse wrote: Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".
I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible? Because remember that text is full of non-sense. We are talking super-hero whose super-strength comes from his hair level of nonsense.
If you're going to criticize the Bible so regularly, it would help your arguments if you actually knew something about it. And to answer your question: Yes, it's in the text.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible?
It's a translation thing. The word used in the original text can be translated literally as "kill", but it can also mean "murder". And given the constant examples of god commanding his followers to kill I think it's pretty safe to say that the original intent was much closer to a ban on murder than on killing at all.
And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.
*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.
It's also worth noting that the linked study gets its figures solely from tax returns. I would be curious as to the number of people from either 'affiliation' who donate money to charity but don't declare it on their tax return. I know I generally don't.
It never ceases to amuse me that the same people who complain about "big government" telling them what to do are quite happy to legislate over what women to with their bodies.
For clarity, I consider myself neither conservative or liberal, and were I an American Citizen I'd probably be considered an Independent.
And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.
*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.
"I want proof to your claim!"
"OK here's some"
"This doesn't count if you take away everything that proves your point, and leaves only my point"
As always, when I read a thread like this, I laugh out loud. Why?
Because America is a liberal country that tries to deny that it's a liberal country.
Enshrining the right of your citizens to bear arms and allow them the rights of free speech, is probably one of the most liberal things we have ever seen in human history.
Conservatives in America were the people who remained loyal to King George, the people who wanted to preserve the social order. Rebelling against Great Britain, and overthrowing the established order, is not the actions of conservatives, it is the actions of a liberal mind-set!
Fighting a civil war to end slavery is not the actions of a conservative nation.
Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.
don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,
Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.
the law says they have to, etc.
Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.
Execution is only more expensive than life imprisonment because we are doing it incorrectly.
We can agree the justice system is messee up, but executions themselves are not the problem. Its how we run prisons in general.
A streamlined system would make executions cheaper than life if they werent practically the same thing like they are now.
I'm a social liberal (and a economic, nothing, because I don't know economics) so let's see how many I can answer.
1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
That's funny, I never heard anything like that. Right-wing extremists can be evil, but that does not make all right-wingers evil. Besides, you can't generalize an entire fething religion as evil. Terrorists of any denomination are evil.
2) If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
Is this guy serious? Those are two things have nothing yo do with each-other. My answer, no.
3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?
Easily. I don't care about whether my politicians cheat on their wives or whatever, as long as they do a good job.
4) What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
pretty loaded question you got there. It appears to be implying that taxes are wrong. How about this, take the amount of money the government uses to protect our american citizens (all the consumer protection, military, medical support, policing, ect) and think to yourself, how much is that worth? Now go feth yourself, and ask a question that's not loaded, like "how much should we be paying in taxes?" Then we have to consider that individuals wealth, station, who relies on them, ect. It's not an easy question for anybody to truly answer.
5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?
Economics, so I'm not going to try.
6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
You.. really are a moron aren't you?
7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
Again, how stupid are you
8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
Econmimics, I'm not even going to touch this.
9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
Those two things have nothing alike. Not all charities go toward the poor you know. If it is true, than a very simple answer-religion. You also have to look at percentage of income instead of just amount. People say that the Rs don't care about the poor because of their obsession with gutting welfare.
10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
You try answering that.
11) Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
Because we still have to
12) If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
Marrige is not based on "God's definition" you unsufferable gakker.
13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
Yes.
14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
Because you still hired a lawer, fethwit. They still need paying.
15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
They are not children moron. They are fetuses, that are not even able to think. My (personal) reason against the death penelty is the chance that they are wrongly convicted.
16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
Nicely loaded question you got there.
17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
That's funny, I think we can explain it, and have
18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
What? You really are a moron. Those two have nothing to do with one-another
19) If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
No. The richer portions and comfortably pay more. Also, that's a pretty bug generalization there. And is doesn't make much sense. Our main expenditure, the military, is used by everyone, so are most thing the government provides
20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
Are you serious? First, that would be discrimination, second, it is established fact that women are payed less. Just because corporations haven't tried an idiotic idea to save money, doesn't change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about "God's definition of marriage", that would be polygamy, where women are bought as wives, women marry their rapists, incest, ect?
14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
How is this something liberal support and conservative oppose ?
14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
How is this something liberal support and conservative oppose ?
Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.
Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.
That's just silly. We all know who's really to blame.
Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.
That's just silly. We all know who's really to blame.
marv335 wrote:It never ceases to amuse me that the same people who complain about "big government" telling them what to do are quite happy to legislate over what women to with their bodies.
That's because you fundamentally misunderstand their stance on the issue. Pro-choice sees things from that perspective, sure, but the reason behind pro-life stances is that they believe that abortions literally kill babies. Now, you may not agree that the baby is alive until later so it doesn't count, but if you don't acknowledge that disagreement as something more complex than "well, they just hate women" then you really don't understand what's going on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As always, when I read a thread like this, I laugh out loud. Why?
Because America is a liberal country that tries to deny that it's a liberal country.
Enshrining the right of your citizens to bear arms and allow them the rights of free speech, is probably one of the most liberal things we have ever seen in human history.
Conservatives in America were the people who remained loyal to King George, the people who wanted to preserve the social order. Rebelling against Great Britain, and overthrowing the established order, is not the actions of conservatives, it is the actions of a liberal mind-set!
Fighting a civil war to end slavery is not the actions of a conservative nation.
America, you're liberal, deal with it!
Pretty sure I've said this before
To make it even more mixed up, go back to thee 60's and read up on the political players. You'll find a lot of comments from Democrats in favor of segregation and racist policies, with the KKK being heavily tied to the Democratic party. Republican organizations like the NRA, on the other hand, tended to heavily support ending segregation in various ways. Then the Democrats realized that with a welfare heavy agenda they could capture the minority vote, while Republicans kind of took a more "you're legally free now, go off and do whatever you want and we don't really care" attitude so people just kind of assume that Democrats have always been pro-minority and Republicans racist.
Yeah, its wierd, Im Reading "Gone with the wind" And hearing southerners say "We nee more democrats" Is kinda funny, because you will never hear that now
The Republican Party deliberately adopted "The Southern Strategy" to win votes in the south by appealing to the racist and/or religious elements of southern voters.. IIRC, Richard Nixon was the first presidential candidate to adopt this strategy in Presidential politics, and though it is less blatantly racist than it was before, it has never really gone away to this day.
I think that oversimplifies it a bit (and gives Republicans too much credit). After a Democratic President passed the Civil Right's act, it's not like the Southern voting blocks had much where else to go. They could vote with all the black people (who they hated) or they could vote for the other side (who they hated less).
Yeah Nixon and the Republicans handed out an olive branch for them, but all they really did was swipe up a voting block that went up for grabs by changing their tone a little.
CITES wrote: Over 20,000 African elephants were poached across the continent in 2013 according to a report released today by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Although the sharp upward trend in illegal elephant killing observed since the mid-2000s, which had peaked in 2011, is levelling off, poaching levels remain alarmingly high and continue to far exceed the natural elephant population growth rates, resulting in a further decline in elephant populations across Africa.
WWF wrote:Chimpanzees have already disappeared from 4 African countries, and are nearing extinction in many others. Deforestation and commercial hunting for bushmeat are taking a terrible toll on most populations.
Not to mention the killing of adult chimps in order to secure the juveniles for the tourist trade.
These questions remind me of the emails that my fathers very conservative friends email him all the time which he then forwards to me.
They have a lot of "facts", which sound good at first glance until you think about them for more than 5 seconds and you realize they are all bs.
Also the whole thing about balanced budget amendments or locking the government into a certain spending level is probably the stupidest fething thing I can think of. It is like saying that we should lock the sterling wheel of the car in place with a device so the car is always driving straight forward, because we are currently driving straight forward. Yea we may be currently driving straight forward but what if we need to turn the car left or right eventually.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough. I was rebutting the incorrect assertion that 60s era Republicans had an attitude of just "You're free now, do what you want".
What I meant by that is the general Republican approach nowadays to race issues is to shrug and walk away.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough. I was rebutting the incorrect assertion that 60s era Republicans had an attitude of just "You're free now, do what you want".
What I meant by that is the general Republican approach nowadays to race issues is to shrug and walk away.
As opposed to the Democrat approach of fanning the flames and talking about imaginary sons?
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
20 Is kind of funny because last I check that is actually happening. You have companies were laying off men more then women because the men were paid more.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Wait wut.
He possibly means that he doesn't like the idea of abortion, but accepts that it is ultimately not his choice to make.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Pragmatic huh? That sounds better than be fahked in the as I was called by someone in my ethics class.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Wait wut.
I believe abortion is wrong and in the majority of cases should be avoided, but I don't think a law or ban on it is the way to go. A law is inflexible and it can take the choice away from the people who should be making it themselves. I belive It really should be the choice of the parents. I don't want them to choose abortion unless they have to, but I they would know the situation better then I would.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Wait wut.
He possibly means that he doesn't like the idea of abortion, but accepts that it is ultimately not his choice to make.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Then your very pragmatic? I don't know. These are two very complex issues that people will have different views on for different reasons. I am pro choice, but anti abortion. Pro death penalty, but I don't want to see it used.
Pragmatic huh? That sounds better than be fahked in the as I was called by someone in my ethics class.
Oh I actually liked my ethics class because it gave me a good argument to use to talk about abortion. The Violinist. (My book had a chello player as the example.)
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
It's a different framing that avoids a lot of arguments about at what month, day second a cell becomes a person.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue..... Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong. The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother. It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.
Um...
You might need to take a another try at explaining what it was you were saying?
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?
I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.
It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.
I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue..... Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong. The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother. It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed. Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?
I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.
I'm not asking you to equate (or not) the two.
Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?
I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.
I'm not asking you to equate the two.
Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.
Actually... I'd posit that the first thing pro-lifers need to do... and AGRESSIVELY do... is to put their money right where their mouth is. That is: advance alternatives to abortion services. Charity homes, daycare assistance, etc...
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors
I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?
I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.
I'm not asking you to equate (or not) the two.
Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).
Several Reasons.
1: I detest the idea of "Eye for an eye"
2: You can possibly put down an innocent man
3: Its costs more to kill then it does to house
4: What if I go after someone who killed my wife? Am I justified for doing so? Even outside the law?
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue..... Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong. The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother. It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive. And thus the death penalty and abortion are nothing alike. It makes not sense to argue with the two presented as facets. That, and I did read/watch this thing (can't remember which) where this guy said that abortion does not usually stop a child, but postpone it, because most people who have an abortion will have a baby down the line instead.
I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.
Actually... I'd posit that the first thing pro-lifers need to do... and AGRESSIVELY do... is to put their money right where their mouth is. That is: advance alternatives to abortion services. Charity homes, daycare assistance, etc...
I agree, but there does not seem to be much support for this on the main stage. It cost money, and nobody want's to give up anything or pay more taxes.
Verviedi wrote: I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.
None of these things are happening to babies.
Feth your semantics.
Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.
Here's my take...
If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...
Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.
Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...
You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.
Um...
Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .
What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?
It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.
So when does a fetus become "alive"?
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.
Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".
whembly wrote: That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.
Actually... no we don't agree then.
I don't want it "easily available". I want it rare and not used as another form of contraceptive (ie, exception including life of the mother and rape/incest).
Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .
What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.
So when does a fetus become "alive"?
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.
Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.
So when does a fetus become "alive"?
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.
Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".
When it can viably live outside the mother. That is when.
And do you consider a benign tumor "Alive" because that is what a Blastocyst is. A clump of cells that has the potential to be life
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.
So when does a fetus become "alive"?
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.
Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".
When it can viably live outside the mother. That is when.
And do you consider a benign tumor "Alive" because that is what a Blastocyst is. A clump of cells that has the potential to be life
That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.
So when does a fetus become "alive"?
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.
Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".
By the time it is conscious and can survive without being attached to the mother. I'm not a doctor, but I think it's something like during the third trimester (not sure). Essentially, when it is an individual. That is only for chosen abortion, obviously. When it comes down to the life of the mother, It's is until it is born, although every effort should be taken to see the fetus or baby survives. It may seem cruelly logical, but I value the life of an adult over that of a not-yet-born child. They are a blank slate that can be created again, the mother already exists as an active human in this world.
This should not be taken as an answer for all pro-choice people, just as my personal view. Very rough answer, as I am pretty sleepy right now .
hotsauceman1 wrote: Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?
Babies don't turn into baby humans because they already are baby humans.
And no, nobody is saying or implying that. Why would you ask a question like that?
Because, if a baby is alive from the moment of conception, and the mother accidentally does something too miscarry it, is it not murder? If so how is abortion murder, but her accidently killing the baby not?
As a liberal, the reason I can't take pro lifers seriously is that they don't understand that some babies can kill the woman carrying them. In their pro life stance, they'd rather see the mom die than allow an abortion. If you think your opinion on the matter should be enforced upon another human, then you should take a share of the burden to make sure that child is raised properly and has proper health care and nutrition. ie gladly support welfare & obamacare.
Lastly, even god was pro abortion (see numbers 5) he used to perform them.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?
Babies don't turn into baby humans because they already are baby humans.
And no, nobody is saying or implying that. Why would you ask a question like that?
Because, if a baby is alive from the moment of conception, and the mother accidentally does something too miscarry it, is it not murder? If so how is abortion murder, but her accidently killing the baby not?
I don't recall posting that I believed one way or the other that a baby is alive from the moment of conception.
In answer to your second question, accidental killings usually aren't considered murder.
It is always alive, but merely being alive does not grant full status as a person (otherwise you'd be committing murder if you removed cancer cells).
Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".
There is no easy answer, because it's not a black and white thing. The best way to decide is based on mental development, and that's a steady process from nothing to fully human. There's no discrete point where a brain is developed to the point where it becomes a "person", but one second earlier it isn't. So there's a gray area where we can't be sure with modern knowledge and technology. However, this isn't really a problem because the vast majority of abortions happen well before that gray area, when the fetus indisputably does not have any kind of "personhood" yet. And the vast majority of abortions that happen near or after that gray area happen because of serious medical problems, not simply because the woman decides she doesn't want a child anymore.
whembly wrote: I want it rare and not used as another form of contraceptive (ie, exception including life of the mother and rape/incest).
Your wish is already granted. The whole "abortion as a contraceptive" thing is a conservative straw man, if people are given access to cheaper, easier, and safer alternatives then very few people are going to ignore those alternatives and think "it's ok, I'll just get an abortion every time I get pregnant".
Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .
What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?
Let's agree to disagree. Cool?
Otherwise, we'll get stuck in circles.
Whatever, the two aren't equivalent. So sure agree to disagree.
It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.
I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.
Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?
That doesn't even make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: As a liberal, the reason I can't take pro lifers seriously is that they don't understand that some babies can kill the woman carrying them. In their pro life stance, they'd rather see the mom die than allow an abortion. If you think your opinion on the matter should be enforced upon another human, then you should take a share of the burden to make sure that child is raised properly and has proper health care and nutrition. ie gladly support welfare & obamacare.
Lastly, even god was pro abortion (see numbers 5) he used to perform them.
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.
It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.
So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.
I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.
Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.
That's not an appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion is something like "Think of the children."
Also, for the most part, people are not talking about late-tern abortions. I don't even think it is legal for an abortion by choice at those late staged, only being allowed when the life of the mother is at stake.
Relapse wrote: I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.
No, it's simple fact. Most abortions happen at that point.
Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.
Yes, but how many of those abortions involved women who just decided at the last second that they don't want a baby after all? I think you'll find that most of them involved serious medical problems where an abortion was either necessary to protect the mother or an act of mercy for a baby that was only going to experience a short and painful life if it had been born. This category, by the way, should include virtually all legal late-term abortions, since the cutoff point for legal "because I want to" abortions is back at the "barely recognizable as human" stage.
(And really, want to end voluntary late-term abortions? Don't put obstacles in the way of getting one earlier.)
Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving. Or perhaps they are filled with the Christian spirit of charity towards all their fellow men and will happily take these extra children into their own homes and raise them off the state dollar?
Perhaps also forcing employers to pay for insurance which covers contraception so that people are less likely to have all these unwanted children in the first place?
Increase wages so people feel they can afford to raise children?
Maybe also allow some meaningful sexual education in schools?
Maybe free contraceptives and contraceptive advice available in all schools and doctors surgeries?
Relapse wrote: Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.
Why 'of course'?
At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.
There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.
Relapse wrote: Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.
Why 'of course'?
At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.
There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.
The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it puts the state in control of a very complicated decision with huge health, financial, and well-being implications that is best left in the hands of the individual or individuals who that decision affects most. I thought conservatives were all for keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible, then we hit this issue, and they suddenly want total control. If you don't like abortion, noone is forcing you or your loved ones to have one, so why not just decide to never have one according to your conscience, and leave that complicated decision for others to make on their own.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..
Why?
The right to bodily autonomy. If you are relying on a blood transfusion from me, and doing so could result in my death and I don't want to do it, then it doesn't happen. You have no rights over my body. The same is true with pregnancy; the foetus has no rights over the mother's body, and so if the mother does not wish to provide help at the risk of her own health (continuing a nonviable pregnancy) then she has the right to end it.
The foetus has no rights over the mother's body, therefore the mother is more important than the child.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..
Why?
Oh beaten to the punch! Insaniak is truly an internet ninja
The standard argument is that the unborn child's life as an autonomous being is only 'potential', while the mother's is 'actual'.
One should also use the old English Common Law argument: -One person is not required to give their life to save another. One can assume both are lives, and both lives are equally "valid." But there is no common law or statutory law that will withstand Constitutional Scrutiny that requires the above.
Relapse wrote: Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.
Why 'of course'?
At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.
There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.
The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it puts the state in control of a very complicated decision with huge health, financial, and well-being implications that is best left in the hands of the individual or individuals who that decision affects most. I thought conservatives were all for keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible, then we hit this issue, and they suddenly want total control. If you don't like abortion, noone is forcing you or your loved ones to have one, so why not just decide to never have one according to your conscience, and leave that complicated decision for others to make on their own.
I feel I should mention that I'm only taking issue with Co'tor's blanket 'if you disagree with me then you're wrong' statement. I'm not stating my personal opinions on the matter, nor trying to argue for one side or the other, but simply trying to promote a discussion that has a chance to go beyond "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" etc. etc. ad infinitum. Stating that someone who disagrees with an opinion is "kidding themselves" is a far cry from proving that they're wrong through discussion, and by providing points that can be countered there is a chance--however slim--that a reasonable discussion can be fostered. Unless otherwise stated, any points I bring up do not mirror my own personal views.
@Frazzled: I didn't say both aren't valid lives. The argument is that while a child is in utero, that child is decidedly not autonomous (its 100% dependent on the mother for everything), while the mothers life is autonomous.
And as such, philosophically at least, one could claim that the child isn't an actual life yet, but is instead part of the mother's body.
In the French ass restaurant, where the hell is my damn croissant?
Why does it hurt when I pee?
How many licks does it take?
What happened to my peanut butter sandwich that one time at summer camp?
How did Bruce Wayne get from an unknown Middle Eastern country's prison all the way back to Gotham without being noticed?
Does this outfit make my butt look big?
How would you rule the Crossbow Expert feat?
A train leaves Rome at 4:54 am, averaging 88 mph. Another train headed in the same direction leaves Rome at 5:45 am, averaging 108 mph.
To the nearest minute, at what time will the second train overtake the first train?
In the French ass restaurant, where the hell is my damn croissant?
***Steenking American! No croissants for you!
Why does it hurt when I pee?
***Clearly you didn’t watch the training film did you private?
How many licks does it take?
***One…Two…THREE!!! It take three licks.
What happened to my peanut butter sandwich that one time at summer camp?
***Well, now you know why it hurts when you pee.
How did Bruce Wayne get from an unknown Middle Eastern country's prison all the way back to Gotham without being noticed?
***Virgin Airlines.
Does this outfit make my butt look big?
***No. Your butt makes your butt look big.
How would you rule the Crossbow Expert feat?
***Crossbows are for European wussies. Americans use blow darts and secretions of colorful frogs.
A train leaves Rome at 4:54 am, averaging 88 mph. Another train headed in the same direction leaves Rome at 5:45 am, averaging 108 mph.
To the nearest minute, at what time will the second train overtake the first train?
***That depends. Does my Vought Corsair have rockets?
Does Bo know?
***Bo Knows Ritalin!
Why ask why?
***Bud Dry?
Are we men?
***We are manly Menz who do manly Thingz
What is the Matrix?
***It’s a cross I must bear.
What is man?
***long pig if cooked right.
What is love?
***When it doesn’t hurt when you pee.
Relapse wrote: Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.
Why 'of course'?
At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?
Perhaps "of course it would have to happen" is bad wording on my part. In my defense, I blame 2am waking up to take care of the dog. What I meant is at the point of serious risk to the mother, she should get the choice. In cases where it looks like one or both are going to die, for instance.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..
Why?
An unborn child is merely a blank slate, the mother already formed in society. It may seem unfeeling, and in a sense it is, but it is logical. You can always make another baby. And take this into consideration, are you truly willing to go up to a pregnant women and tell her that she must have the baby and die in the process? I doubt it, and that is true with most people, but people are willing to do this with legislation.
Keep in mind, most abortions do not actually stop children from happening, they merely postpone them. And in cases where continued pregnancy will kill the mother will probably result in the child's death in any case.
Also, this life-or-death decision is on for the mother to make, I'm not going to force anyone to have an abortion, that's just wrong. This is a very emotional choice, ad is choosing to kill your unborn child. The effects can be devastating to the mother. If they want to sacrifice themselves for the child, I am fine with that, but I find it despicable that people will not give them that choice.
SilverMK2 wrote: Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving.
I exalted this, because you managed to nail in one sentence just how short sighted people can be when it comes to social issues. They oppose abortion, but don't want to pay for welfare and education, tell lies about contraception, and stigmatize unmarried mothers as 'sinners'. They want to clamp down on crime, but don't want to deal with the root causes such as poverty, or pay for prisons. They oppose a minimum wage, and then call people 'lazy' when they can't make ends meet. They want everyone to be 'free' to carry arms, but then act dismayed when police are cowering behind their cars gunning down 12 year olds because they're scared 'witless' of everyone.
I'm 'quite' liberal and I'm certainly not fine with abortion. I think it is tragic, and perhaps even wasteful and sometimes selfish. But I also respect that it might be the lesser of two evils. I personally think far too much time and energy is wasted discussing abortion when the focus should really be on unplanned pregnancy and how it can be avoided. Things are not always black and white; problems cascade through society compounding other problems.
Pretty much every question on the front page displays a disappointing lack of insight into both the issues, and the arguments for and against them. That's the problem with trying to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with these people. Before that can even take palce they need to be educated beyond what they heard of Fox news, and willing to understand that conclusions should be twisted to fit the evidence for the sake of truth, not the other way around for the sake of vanity.
The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.
nomotog wrote: The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.
To be fair, I think most pro-lifers are only against those forms of birth control that they perceive as abortifacients. However, I know that on the extreme end of the spectrum, there are also people who believe that sex that is not totally open to the possibility of conception is immoral.
Hell, Jesus even said the best route to take for a man is to make himself a eunuch!
See this thing doesn't work since I have things I am liberal about and things I am conservative about.
Life is not black and white, at least mine isn't.
The one about "God's definition of marriage" made me cringe (I mean how many times in the bible did God let polygamy or even demand it?)
I don't think a country has any rights to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry.
I'm not a stupid child, if I want to marry 5 men and 5 women then I should be able to. Obviously the legal tax stuff and the like would be different, but at the end of the day it's things like that I care a lot about.
But this is American stuff and I believe the US is...well weird...
The one about "God's definition of marriage" made me cringe (I mean how many times in the bible did God let polygamy or even demand it?)
My reaction was, which God, and show me the evidence that (a) this God is real, (b) this God has ever communicated to anyone regarding marriage, and then tell me why I should take what this God has to say seriously.
We as a society determine through law and other institutions what marriage is, between who it is allowed, and so forth. Religious arguments are fine for the religious, but they don't hold any water at all for the non-religious.
nomotog wrote: The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.
To be fair, I think most pro-lifers are only against those forms of birth control that they perceive as abortifacients. However, I know that on the extreme end of the spectrum, there are also people who believe that sex that is not totally open to the possibility of conception is immoral.
Hell, Jesus even said the best route to take for a man is to make himself a eunuch!
The shame is that they make some of the best options. IUDS and such. (I have seen many arguments about how exactly they work and if they really can be thought of as abortifactents.) Ya and then you have the people who just hate all forms of birth control because... they do I guess. Another thing is that there isn't really a firm defining line. A place like planed parent would be attacked by anti abortion people (in the law and I guess physical attacked) and they are a real big provider of contraceptives.
The list in the OP is something I would have shared when I was a 19 year old registered Republican. Life was simple when it was so black and white.
Then I got more liberal politically as I grew more conservative in my personal life. IMO we could "save" so many more unborn children if we took all the money spend by special interest interest groups pushing for anti-abortion laws and all the money wasted by the states defending the same unconstitutional laws in court year after year and spend it on the resources that would help people make the choice to choose life.
Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean that I can't push for policies that encourage one choice over another.
Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
You're at what, 36/50?
SilverMK2 wrote: And this is why church and state should not mix
on the flip side your major lefty groups appear just fine with 3rd trimester abortion, which really is killing a baby that can survive.
They are not my major lefty groups
The vast majority of the medical establishment is happy that the abortion limits (in the UK at least) have been set appropriately. While I am not a reproductive scientist, I would agree (from what scientific and medical material I have read) that the limits are the best that can be arrived at, both for the mother and potential offspring.
Small pressure groups exist on the extremes of every argument. What one does not want is people with imaginary friends telling them what is and isn't "right", and setting the law accordingly
Rainbow Dash wrote: Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
This is why its important to remain vigilant of religious intrusion on the law and social institutions...there is an impulse common in the religious sphere, especially amongst those that believe they are in receipt of a divine text or of divine instructions, to impose that religion on everyone else.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
You're at what, 36/50?
What happened to the other 14%?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The list in the OP is something I would have shared when I was a 19 year old registered Republican. Life was simple when it was so black and white.
Then I got more liberal politically as I grew more conservative in my personal life. IMO we could "save" so many more unborn children if we took all the money spend by special interest interest groups pushing for anti-abortion laws and all the money wasted by the states defending the same unconstitutional laws in court year after year and spend it on the resources that would help people make the choice to choose life.
Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean that I can't push for policies that encourage one choice over another.
Exalted!
Not percent 34 of your states have same sex marriage so far.
SilverMK2 wrote: Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving. Or perhaps they are filled with the Christian spirit of charity towards all their fellow men and will happily take these extra children into their own homes and raise them off the state dollar?
How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
What is your advice for a woman who's in a situation where she can't afford to provide food, clothing, and shelter for a baby?
And not just can't afford. What if a mother is disabled in one way or another, and does not have the physical and/or mental requirements to raise a child?
SilverMK2 wrote: And this is why church and state should not mix
on the flip side your major lefty groups appear just fine with 3rd trimester abortion, which really is killing a baby that can survive.
I'm against that for almost every case, only if it is the mother's life at stake, and even then, you should make every effort yo make the fetus/baby survive.
I'll reiterate my point again, I dislike abortions, and want people to avoid them when not necessary. Late term abortions are disgusting, but sometimes necessary. I want abortions to be clean, safe, easily accessible, and rare.
We have a problem in our country which causes them to be so (relatively) common. Think about this, I'm 19, so my health classes were only 2 years ago, and in NY state, so it tends to be pretty liberal, and I don't remember hearing about contraception addressed in class at all.
And with all this talk about choice, I think we need something to lighten the mood a little.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
This is why its important to remain vigilant of religious intrusion on the law and social institutions...there is an impulse common in the religious sphere, especially amongst those that believe they are in receipt of a divine text or of divine instructions, to impose that religion on everyone else.
Yeah and I don't want it, I don't want church, Jesus, that guilt that comes with religion, sin, hopes of heaven, nothing.
And since I have this way of thinking I don't want religion in my life.
I have nothing against those who do, but a country not based on any one religion should not have a religion influence it's laws.
Some church goers shouldn't be able to tell me who I can and cannot marry (in terms of consenting adults).
Verviedi wrote: People below 18 should not be having sex anyway. Contraceptive advice in colleges, sure, but free contraceptives would be a waste of money that could feed people.
And criminals should not be committing crimes anyway, so I guess we don't need police and prisons. Maybe if we bury our heads in the sand it will just go away.
Also do you really believe any money saved would be used to feed people? If you want money to feed people then I suggest you turn your attention to the biggest leech on the system, which is cooperate tax evasion (sometimes know as accounting, and government sanctioned tax breaks) but it ends up costing trillions. Trillions that I suppose could be spent on feeding people, and all kinds of other infrastructure. Look at it this way: what cost more? Feeding someone for 60 years, OR a condom? Then think about how much money you just saved.
I dislike abortions too, but I think for a different reason, you see I don't think the pontential of human life should be thrown away so easily (note: I don't believe a human is "human" until it is born), I don't think its murder because I don't think killing a mindless cow is murder, harsh I understand but that's that.
I do however dislike it as it throws away the pontential of the person that may have been, it just doesn't sit well with me, but that's not my choice, its the parent or person giving birth, I also don't think a woman should be allowed to have the child if both parents don't want the child, and if she proceeds she cannot claim anything from the father.
as to one of the other above points, contraceptives should always bee freely available, were animals and as much as the god folk don't like it, were not that far above our basic insticts still, people are going to want to have sex at whatever age they are, and we should try to educate them as much as possible with hard facts (i.e not religious) of what will happen, and provide contraception for WHEN they decide to ignore what they have been informed.
Formosa wrote: I dislike abortions too, but I think for a different reason, you see I don't think the pontential of human life should be thrown away so easily (note: I don't believe a human is "human" until it is born), I don't think its murder because I don't think killing a mindless cow is murder, harsh I understand but that's that.
I do however dislike it as it throws away the pontential of the person that may have been, it just doesn't sit well with me, but that's not my choice, its the parent or person giving birth, I also don't think a woman should be allowed to have the child if both parents don't want the child, and if she proceeds she cannot claim anything from the father.
as to one of the other above points, contraceptives should always bee freely available, were animals and as much as the god folk don't like it, were not that far above our basic insticts still, people are going to want to have sex at whatever age they are, and we should try to educate them as much as possible with hard facts (i.e not religious) of what will happen, and provide contraception for WHEN they decide to ignore what they have been informed.
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
sirlynchmob wrote: Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?
I don't. I'm not a fan of abortion as a rule, but recognise the need for it in some situations. My previous questions in this thread were in response to people making blanket statements of opinion as if they were indisputable fact, with no reasoning to back them up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
Because forcing someone to raise a child that they didn't want doesn't tend to result in the most nurturing environment for the child?
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Co'tor Shas wrote: True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Certainly. Although I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but they make adoption insanely difficult over here.
It's one of those ridiculous bureaucracy things. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops and prove your fitness as a parent to adopt... but there's no problem at all with an unemployed drug-addict living in filth with her abusive ex-convict partner spitting out as many kids as they please.
Co'tor Shas wrote: True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Certainly. Although I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but they make adoption insanely difficult over here.
It's one of those ridiculous bureaucracy things. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops and prove your fitness as a parent to adopt... but there's no problem at all with an unemployed drug-addict living in filth with her abusive ex-convict partner spitting out as many kids as they please.
A couple of my friends have gone through the adoption route, and I don't know how it is here.... but it was rather insane for them (IMO) when they went through it.
The agency they went through required a certain amount of money in their savings account (and that amount varied, depending on the skin color of the child they were trying to adopt), as well as prove stable employment, with projected employment for, IIRC 5-10 years after the proposed adoption date.
On the one hand, I understand putting people through rigorous screening to ensure that adopting families are capable and willing.... but it just seemed a bit excessive, ESPECIALLY the differing amount of money depending on the race of the child.
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
sirlynchmob wrote: Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?
I don't. I'm not a fan of abortion as a rule, but recognise the need for it in some situations. My previous questions in this thread were in response to people making blanket statements of opinion as if they were indisputable fact, with no reasoning to back them up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
Because forcing someone to raise a child that they didn't want doesn't tend to result in the most nurturing environment for the child?
I think I have found something we are mostly in sinc on. Well spoken.
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
And if they can't afford to? Should we just leave those children to starve to death, and congratulate ourselves on how we do a great job of encouraging personal responsibility? And what about the fact that a parent being forced to raise an unwanted child is a perfect recipe for neglect and/or abuse? This really makes a joke out of the term "pro-life", since what happens to the child after it is born doesn't seem to matter to you.
Contraceptives should never be free. People should be able to control themselves.
I see, so rather than spent a relatively small amount of money to provide contraceptives to people who have trouble affording them we should spend vast amounts of money supporting unwanted children? Or should we just say "budget crisis" and let the children starve to death to save money?
That's up to the employer.
I guess you don't really understand how poverty works? If all you can get is a minimum-wage job then your employer isn't going to give you more money to raise a child. And if you try to ask for more money they'll just fire you and replace you with one of the countless other poor people who would love to have even a low-end job.
Maybe also allow some meaningful sexual education in schools?
Is there not?
You have got to be kidding. Have you done any research on this subject before posting? I can't really think of any other explanation for how you could fail to know about abstinence-only "education" and how shamefully common it is.
People below 18 should not be having sex anyway.
And people should pay me a million dollars every time I have to read a ridiculous post on the internet. Facts about how the world works should determine our policies, not wishful thinking about how things "should" be.
.
Rastafari!
