Yeah, the think of the children "excuse".
As for the MI law: Obviously it's motivated by anti-abortion sentiment. I mean, it's certainly not motivated by pro-abortion sentiment. I guess what I'm saying (and, to be honest, I don't even know why I'm bothering) is that the anti-Obamacare rhetoric can only be a bullshiznit cover if the law is going to affect way more non-Obamacare plans than the (three) Obamacare plans that were going to offer coverage.
|
Yeah, the think of the children "excuse".
As for the MI law: Obviously it's motivated by anti-abortion sentiment. I mean, it's certainly not motivated by pro-abortion sentiment. I guess what I'm saying (and, to be honest, I don't even know why I'm bothering) is that the anti-Obamacare rhetoric can only be a bullshiznit cover if the law is going to affect way more non-Obamacare plans than the (three) Obamacare plans that were going to offer coverage.
Thats why im not sure why you put it in terms of being anti obamacare, as that is a minor part of it at best
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty WHAT is the difference? 5 month fetus? 8? born an hour ago? WHAT is the moral difference here? Are you killing it less internally then external? Does the moment of birth make it suddenly alive and valuable?
Whos morality are we talking about though? In my book, bringing an unwanted child into the world at the hands of parents who don't want it nor able to /interested in looking after it on the basis of my sensitivities and moral preferences where I wont in any way shape or form be lifting one finger to help this 'victim' is a pretty immoral act in and of itself. I can't rightly sit there and preach that the child should be brought in, no matter what, and then doom it to its obvious fate an abandon it with sense of self-satisfaction afterwards.
Frankly, to answer your question, I think we have it mostly right in this country - abortion is not something considered flippant and light, and we have a range of safety nets, education, and support around the issue. We also teach sex-ed in school BEFORE it's too late (about age 10 they get the first intro).
Come back to me on the abortion issue when the society around you is grown up enough to stop preaching stupid ideas like 'chastity' for birth control - breeding ignorance breeds babies at the hands of ignorant children.
You want to complain and have a song and dance about something, complain about lack of decent health and sex education first.
Thats why im not sure why you put it in terms of being anti obamacare, as that is a minor part of it at best
Alright, now I think you're just f$~~ing with me.
As near as I can tell, as soon as Comrade Barrister brought up Obamacare in relation to this bill, I pointed out that it's scope went way beyond state-subsidized health insurance. You, otoh, started in on nosejobs and then quickly went on to Obamacare.
I give up. I probably shouldn't even have started.
|
|
In all honesty WHAT is the difference? 5 month fetus? 8? born an hour ago? WHAT is the moral difference here? Are you killing it less internally then external? Does the moment of birth make it suddenly alive and valuable?Whos morality are we talking about though? In my book, bringing an unwanted child into the world at the hands of parents who don't want it nor able to /interested in looking after it on the basis of my sensitivities and moral preferences where I wont in any way shape or form be lifting one finger to help this 'victim' is a pretty immoral act in and of itself. I can't rightly sit there and preach that the child should be brought in, no matter what, and then doom it to its obvious fate an abandon it with sense of self-satisfaction afterwards.
Frankly, to answer your question, I think we have it mostly right in this country - abortion is not something considered flippant and light, and we have a range of safety nets, education, and support around the issue. We also teach sex-ed in school BEFORE it's too late (about age 10 they get the first intro).
Come back to me on the abortion issue when the society around you is grown up enough to stop preaching stupid ideas like 'chastity' for birth control - breeding ignorance breeds babies at the hands of ignorant children.
You want to complain and have a song and dance about something, complain about lack of decent health and sex education first.
Well we are not animals and can control our behavior. Chastity or surgery are the only certain methods. But again that doesn't answer the question, if you are OK with abortion would you be ok with killing a baby after birth?
|
|
Thats why im not sure why you put it in terms of being anti obamacare, as that is a minor part of it at bestAlright, now I think you're just f$~~ing with me.
As near as I can tell, as soon as Comrade Barrister brought up Obamacare in relation to this bill, I pointed out that it's scope went way beyond state-subsidized health insurance. You, otoh, started in on nosejobs and then quickly went on to Obamacare.
I give up. I probably shouldn't even have started.
Actually not screwing with you. Just having an off day remembering who said what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well we are not animals and can control our behavior.
That has to be one of the most farcical statements posted to a forum.
We MAY (and I say MAY) be able to control OUR behaviour, but we can't control the behaviour of OTHERS - a highly important part of this equation you seem to not recognise.
There are also many circumstances in which we cannot control our behaviour, through myriad and limitless ranges of decisions we make (like having that one beer too many when we mistakenly exercise poor judgment) but you know what, education goes a long way to helping us make better decisions.
I had thought I had answered your question, but here I'll be blatant, I am ok with abortion, I am not ok with killing a fully formed and healthy baby after birth. I also insist they are different, the same way a single sperm =/= a living human being.
I come back to my earlier comment, Come back to me on the abortion issue when the society around you is grown up enough to stop preaching stupid ideas like 'chastity' for birth control. If you want to see less abortions, petition your state for better education and better family planning facilities. Until then, what you have to say seems pretty empty and mostly hypocritical.
Theft is wrong. They want help and people are willing to give then hey great. but theft is wrong, theft by gov is wrong.
Theft by the government to a certain extent is taxation. Taxes you benefit from a lot more than you'd like to admit.
Not every program is being paid for directly by you. People other than you not only exist, but they pay taxes. And what THEY want is for some of that money to fund abortions.
We are not handing Andrew R. sole discretionary control over the budget. For every program you think we should have, someone else will say "Not with my money!" For every program you don't want to pay for, someone else can say "They're my taxes too, fund it!"
Its. Not. All. About. You. You are not the only person that matters. You want a say on how your taxes are spent? You have just as much say on how that happens than any other individual.
Ask and we may give generously, but thieves we are tired of
Not enough people do this for this system to be viable. It objectively doesn't work, hasn't worked, and won't work.
Eh if you have no issue killing it 5 months into the pregnancy why care about killing it days after it is born?
You say this in jest but I actually agree. Legalize infanticide.
[Goblin]Die, baby pinkskins, die!![/goblin]
[Looks embarrassed] Except for in special, extraordinary cases [cough cough] such as those involving certain little girls whose name might end [cough cough] in "-anov". [Looks embarrassed]
Hey, look over there, it's more hawt Indian chicks dancing!
Eh if you have no issue killing it 5 months into the pregnancy why care about killing it days after it is born?You say this in jest but I actually agree. Legalize infanticide.
Infanticide is so crude a word. I propose 'post-natal abortion' an an alternative.
|
|
Well we are not animals and can control our behavior.That has to be one of the most farcical statements posted to a forum.
We MAY (and I say MAY) be able to control OUR behaviour, but we can't control the behaviour of OTHERS - a highly important part of this equation you seem to not recognise.
There are also many circumstances in which we cannot control our behaviour, through myriad and limitless ranges of decisions we make (like having that one beer too many when we mistakenly exercise poor judgment) but you know what, education goes a long way to helping us make better decisions.
I had thought I had answered your question, but here I'll be blatant, I am ok with abortion, I am not ok with killing a fully formed and healthy baby after birth. I also insist they are different, the same way a single sperm =/= a living human being.
I come back to my earlier comment, Come back to me on the abortion issue when the society around you is grown up enough to stop preaching stupid ideas like 'chastity' for birth control. If you want to see less abortions, petition your state for better education and better family planning facilities. Until then, what you have to say seems pretty empty and mostly hypocritical.
Ok you say that death pre birth or post are different, WHY? WHAT makes this different?
|
|
Theft is wrong. They want help and people are willing to give then hey great. but theft is wrong, theft by gov is wrong.Theft by the government to a certain extent is taxation. Taxes you benefit from a lot more than you'd like to admit.
Not every program is being paid for directly by you. People other than you not only exist, but they pay taxes. And what THEY want is for some of that money to fund abortions.
We are not handing Andrew R. sole discretionary control over the budget. For every program you think we should have, someone else will say "Not with my money!" For every program you don't want to pay for, someone else can say "They're my taxes too, fund it!"
Its. Not. All. About. You. You are not the only person that matters. You want a say on how your taxes are spent? You have just as much say on how that happens than any other individual.
Ask and we may give generously, but thieves we are tired ofNot enough people do this for this system to be viable. It objectively doesn't work, hasn't worked, and won't work.
We simply budget for only the things society must have that benefit all and leave the theft to a bare needed minimum. Build roads and bridges, have a military, set up basic infrastructure. Do not gift our stolen money to pet causes. If people want to have something they will donate to it, let them fund it instead of voting to steal from those that do not.
We simply budget for only the things society must have that benefit all and leave the theft to a bare needed minimum. Build roads and bridges, have a military, set up basic infrastructure. Do not gift our stolen money to pet causes. If people want to have something they will donate to it, let them fund it instead of voting to steal from those that do not.
We've tried that. It sucked. We've moved on and voted to do something else.
You are one of the 47%. According to some you're not even paying for the extras. You'd have a lot less "stolen" from you if we had genuinely progressive taxation rather than regressive taxation... especially if that taxation goes into social measures that save society in the long run like birth control educations and cheap/free abortions.
|
|
We simply budget for only the things society must have that benefit all and leave the theft to a bare needed minimum. Build roads and bridges, have a military, set up basic infrastructure. Do not gift our stolen money to pet causes. If people want to have something they will donate to it, let them fund it instead of voting to steal from those that do not.We've tried that. It sucked. We've moved on and voted to do something else.
You are one of the 47%. According to some you're not even paying for the extras. You'd have a lot less "stolen" from you if we had genuinely progressive taxation rather than regressive taxation... especially if that taxation goes into social measures that save society in the long run like birth control educations and cheap/free abortions.
So you propose only stealing from some who "deserve" it to give away?
So you propose only stealing from some who "deserve" it to give away?
I propose taxing people that can easily afford it to pay for things that make everyone's lives better. (and thats the aggregate everyone, not every single individual, because nothing is going to benefit every single individual)
I'm really not going to get outraged at stealing money from a millionaire to help a rape victim, much less "stealing" by taxation. If I had to do it with a crowbar i would, but hey, taxing is more effective.
|
|
So you propose only stealing from some who "deserve" it to give away?I propose taxing people that can easily afford it to pay for things that make everyone's lives better. (and thats the aggregate everyone, not every single individual, because nothing is going to benefit every single individual)
I'm really not going to get outraged at stealing money from a millionaire to help a rape victim, much less "stealing" by taxation. If I had to do it with a crowbar i would, but hey, taxing is more effective.
And no les immoral. theft is wrong. Trying to pretty it up by claiming it is for a good cause doesn't change what it is
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok you say that death pre birth or post are different, WHY? WHAT makes this different?
You seem to be of the belief that I am the one needing to justify my position to you, yet you seem to be holding an awful lot of highly questionable moral ground right here as charge after charge against you goes unchecked. When you feel like explaining the rampant hypocrisy of your position that has been illustrated to you, perhaps explaining more things to you might become worthwhile.
All you are doing at present is sitting asking why and how, whilst trying to move past the great problems with your own argument.
A discussion entails you expanding on your ideas, not just hitting the question button whilst we entertain you with our positions. In short, start piecing together a comprehensive and defendable position some time soon, or have the grace to tap out - show us your opinions are backed with thought and informed rational positions and not just knee-jerk.
The whole "taxation is theft" thing is nonsense.
It blows my mind that someone could even make such a claim of taxation being theft, and I look forward to the day when a claimant actually attempts to back it with a solid argument.
Theft? It's called paying your dues, which is why its an offence not to pay as not paying IS theft.
And no les immoral. theft is wrong. Trying to pretty it up by claiming it is for a good cause doesn't change what it is
Of course its more moral. Why do you think Robin Hood is the poster boy for the chaotic GOOD alignment?
You've got your morals and your ethics welded together. Thats a good way to wind up with neither.
Theft? It's called paying your dues, which is why its an offence not to pay as not paying IS theft.And yet it's commonplace among US libertarians and the US Right in general.
Although I much prefer the "Property is theft" slogan, sometimes, when I ponder such disparate phenomena as the billions spent on NSA datamining supercenters, football stadiums, Obamacare, Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves these days) mercenaries or the Wall Street bailouts, I am sympathetic to the whole "taxes are theft" argument, too.
But, of course, these aren't the examples that most proponents of said argument point to.
"A Mississippi doctor pointed to the legacy of segregation: 'If you look at the history of Mississippi, politicians have used race to oppose minimum wage, Head Start, all these social programs. It’s a tactic that appeals to people who would rather suffer themselves than see a black person benefit' (New York Times, 2 October)."
I mean, present company excluded of course.
I suppose in a liberal la-la-land social-contract-like-in-a-textbook world where the state is something other than the executive committee of the ruling class it might seem ludicrous.
But on the ground in the USA where even such programs as "health care reform" and welfare seem ultimatley tailored to benefit the bourgeoise (for example, McDonald's and Wal-Mart) more than the population at large, I'm not so sure.
Because I do not see a 3month old fetus as a child. It would be incapable of existing outside of the womb without an incredible amount of technological assistance, if at all.
Either is Stephen Hawking.
I think survivability is the wrong criteria. The question is is there a brain in there that can think and feel? If there is, it has rights because thats the only thing you can sensibly base rights on.
I would also hope that if you're that anti-abortion that you would never, ever vote for anyone who was even partially pro-choice, and that you spend a great deal of your time trying to prevent the murder of innocents.
If its truly about being pro-life then you'd also need to vote against any Government going to war, that reduced welfare spending, that had powers of execution for the state and so on.
I would also expect that person to be busting a nut working their whole time running orphanages and foster care, somewhere the unwanted children can find a home - because of course the same person would care about the rights of the child post partum yeah?
Actually no
Its very silly to try to correct someone on the subjective deliniation between an incredible amount of technological assistance and a "moderate" amount of technological assistnace.
he only requires a moderate amount of technological assistance.
Seriously, that makes a difference for you? If he deteriorates to the point where you would subjectively catagorize the amount of technological assistance as "Severe" then he loses all of his rights?
As for thinking and feeling, well, animals think and feel. Some more or less than others. I am not for giving full rights to all creatures that swim, fly or frollic. So, I'm not going to see that as the "only sensible" criteria. That and where doe we draw the line as to what is "thinking"?
I usually put it at anything with a spine, cuddlefish and squid. But just to be safe spiders are either kept for the winter or shooed outside.
I would also expect that person to be busting a nut working their whole time
I'm pretty sure you mean "busting their hump," a euphemism that means working really hard. I'm sure if you google what you put in, you'll find how wholly inappropriate it is ;)
Okay, then we're far enough apart conversation is likely to be useless.
I usually put it at anything with a spine, cuddlefish and squid. But just to be safe spiders are either kept for the winter or shooed outside.
Not really, it just changes where on the sliding scale you wind up.
I have a hard time believing you actually hold to the idea that someone requiring extreme medical care loses their rights.
I'd also say that Hawking requires pretty extreme assistance. Without it, he is paralyzed from the neck down and partially paralyzed from the neck up. He can't move to feed himself, and if it weren't for technology he would have no means of communicating complex thoughts with the outside world.
In my opinion, the fetus does not/will not, until such time as it develops to the point as being imbued with the status earning the rights.
Isn't that begging the question though? A fetus doesn't have rights because he hasn't been granted those rights. But why hasn't it?
You, I assume, are a thinking, sentient human. You have those rights imbued in you right now. Supposedly, I don't actually believe that "rights" exist, but that's another discussion. But if you were swatted about the noggin with a +4 Mace of Screw You, and as a result lost those functions, whether or not you lose your status as a sentient being and therefore those rights, is a different thing altogether.
You had/have those rights. In my opinion, the fetus does not/will not, until such time as it develops to the point as being imbued with the status earning the rights.
So what is imbuing me with those rights?
That I am a sentient?
That I am human?
Or that I don't require severe medical intervention to stay alive?
Okay then. I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to point out that your definition was as arbitrary as any other, which you've pointed out on your own so, kudos!
I can also see that person believing that once the child was born that the society in question would have structures and policies in place to deal with the poor and unwanted. Their concern is strictly with the defenseless that are allowed to be murdered without governement protection.
Perhaps, but you might be waiting a LOOOONG time to see that given that the anti-abortion guy here we are arguing with claims that 'taxes are stealing', so here's the big disconnect. In order for society to have those structures and policies you need to have taxation.
I'm pretty sure you mean "busting their hump," a euphemism that means working really hard.
Regional differences at play again :)
I would also expect that person to be busting a nut working their whole timeI'm pretty sure you mean "busting their hump," a euphemism that means working really hard. I'm sure if you google what you put in, you'll find how wholly inappropriate it is ;)
You don't hang out with many people younger than 35, do you? Because that phrase is pretty standard in that context.