More abortions = less welfare. Pick one, right wingers !

Welfare takes money from people without their consent, so clearly it is not moral. Doesn't matter if the person getting the money is needy. Without respect to consent, there is barbarism.

 

I was careful to include the phrase "None of these things, in and of themselves, are evil" in my last post. I'm going to call on it now.

Any person who freely chooses to live as a member of society implicitly accepts its laws and customs as his own. So long as the opportunity to live under other laws, or none, is available, anyone who calls himself a citizen of any land accepts that the government may deprive him of his life or liberty, or take his hard earned wealth away.

Once a person internalizes this concept, it becomes quite obvious that the real evil is not for instance welfare, but the automatic assumption that a person agrees to be a part of the society into which he is born, and the monopoly on law and custom which the federal government of the United States possesses. We have a choice regarding the bread we buy and the beer we drink. All are provided at the same market, and if we desire one brand rather than another we simply buy that one and not the other. But the United states stretches from shore to shore, and if you wish to live in a land where no one will dare to touch your precious earnings, or secede from this union, these options are closed to you. Only through the arduous process of emigration can one choose the government under which one lives.

 

Yes, that is the basis of collectivism, but I am at liberty to occupy the land that nature has provided and no nominal society or state has any moral authority to place preconditions on this natural right.

 

He asked you to pick one. Do you favor feeding children plus keeping them healthy or killing children. People who want no abortions also want to cut welfare programs. That is the dilemma'

 

You are dodging the question even though you are in favor of eliminating children.

 

Again you are in favor of eliminating kids by another means. You may have sex once a month but normal people like sex and have it a lot. i am sorry "don't have sex" has never worked.

 

Euthanasia isn't exclusively killing people who want to die, it's also a part of aggressive eugneics policies of the past - come on dude, read what I said in context.

EARLY (note: not 1st term) abortions can be early enough to not present a significant moral dilemma, but be honest: this isn't just a 'cellular cluster.' 12 weeks.

Forcibly taking anything lawfully earned from anyone to give it to someone else who has not earned it, is always a minor evil, in and of itself.

 

I do not believe that we have a national referendum process. I also still do not believe you or I has a right over other people. We already have a history of what it was like when abortion was outlawed. People's rights should never be decided by referendum or votes. Black rights, woman's suffrage, and gay rights would never have happen.

 

As stated, that's the basis of collectivism. And sure, I'll grant you that, in theory, that's right.

But it also is the same logical justification for state religion, restricting the rights of the minority, etc. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

 

I agree, if they want to outlaw abortion then its only fair we 100% fund a childs education, food, clothing, health care and whatever else is needed. This would of course be 100% tax payer funded. Another payroll tax would probably have to be implemented. A tax that cannot be deducted and has no cap, and does not count towards your return.

It's the least that can be done while we strip women of their rights.

 

The commonly repeated liberal logic on abortion is above, and requires that you never consider the morality of abortion itself.

 

What you are doing is failing to recognize the duality of the argument. Yes, you could say the woman has a right to do what she wills with her body. But the fetus is a person, you can't escape that. So at what point is it ok to take its life away? That argument is the disagreement people are having, and there's too many different opinions to sway one way or the other and claim it's fair. This is a real, unresolvable moral quandry. We need to meet halfway or something, not insist on one or the other.

 

Really? So if you strip men of their "right" to shed all responsibility for what they procreate, does that mean that the state should now be paying all child support bills for men?

 

They are paying..Through taxes. You can't have it both ways. Either pony up or leave women's rights alone.

- - - Updated - - -

Please show me where a "fetus is a person". Show me the law and the fact to prove your claim.

 

"None of these things, in and of themselves, are evil."

Absolutely right. "Cellular cluster" was hyperbole. A 12 week fetus looks much more like a mutant lemur.

Except that this is how human families have operated for time immemorial. Oh, I'm sorry! Maybe you meant to append "without consent?" That would make your position much more defensible. Because starting a family implies consent that wage earners will share with dependents - but then, being part of society you had a choice to enter and leave also implies consent to the laws and customs of that society.

If going somewhere else meant hopping on a bus and filling out a few forms, and there were plenty of somewhere elses that offered significantly different options, then why shouldn't we let some states be totalitarian? No matter how restrictive any state is, as long as it lets people leave, and as long as there are plenty of reasonable options, how could there be a problem?

I do kid around a lot, but I'm being serious when I ask you to please remember, people are not all the same. Ants vastly outnumber eagles. Almost no one wants to live in the kind of society I crave. Why should I force it on them? When liberty is ensured by an inflexible government at the point of a gun, is it even liberty anymore? Or is it tyranny? "You cannot have gun control, you cannot have anti pornography laws, you cannot prevent consenting individuals from having opium orgies, abortions, or voiding their bowels on the nation's flag. You have the freedom to be free from restrictions on freedom - but you don't have the freedom to give your freedom away."

The usual solution to this problem is democracy, but that only makes the majority happy at the expense of the minority. If there were a marketplace of governments, however, then they could compete for citizens. The only restrictions would be very loose articles about peace between neighbors, and some assurance that people would always be allowed to leave if they wanted to. Would it work for America? I don't know, but personally I think it's such a great idea that it could never happen in our lifetimes.

 

It's a false choice. There are other, less barbaric ways to reduce poverty.

 

A truely stupid point, given that there's a context.

Or maybe you just missed the word 'forcibly.' I don't know why you're being so stupid today.

 

Not really. Or maybe you don't understand how progressive tax systems work?


not including tax credits exceeding tax liability


Look, don't be mad at me because your rationale is logically inconsistent. You can be a hypocrite, and that's fine. This is just a political forum.

 

OK, I give. Sorry, I wasn't thinking very hard at all. In my defense, I did say in that post that I was kidding around a bit, but I guess you'd gotten bored and stopped reading at that point.

 

In fact, enough of this forum for a while. I'll see you all around.

 

Well.....we could just kill the actual welfare recipients, the petty criminals and those who drain our society. We could take the newborns from welfare recipients and place them with families on waiting lists and execute the parents. Wouldn't that be more efficient then killing an innocent child?

 

That is based on your religious belief. I do not let my religious beliefs tell others what they can and cannot do.

Sorry, you have gone all religious right on me. You are meeting nothing halfway if you start with the fetus being a person.

Your purpose is to stop abortions by hoping that the religious right will bring the average way down. Some might say 20 weeks, 24 weeks, less weeks but every religious right person will say zero.

I wondered why you would suggest something that can't be done.

 

Who's killing "innocent children"?

 

The moment a zygote forms, it is a human being, simply at it's very earliest stages. You are made up of cells - the human body is a giant collection of cells. A fetus is simply a smaller collection of said cells. It has the DNA of a human being and operates like one, it simply take time for the necessary chemical processes the DNA demands to configure themselves into a fully formed human. That zygote WILL become an adult human left to its own devices - it is not different from you, it simply hasn't existed as long. It is human.

I am not against abortion. But I don't try and act as if I'm not killing something when an abortion occurs - you are killing something. You are killing a human at a very early stage of its life. Last time I checked, we didn't consider people less human because of their age.

 

Actually,technology is doing that.

The reason there's been an upswing in Pro-lifers, isn't so much because of the Pro-life movement, but because the shear availability of contraception that makes surgical abortion look grotesquely unnecessary. If it comes to that point, it's clear you were irresponsible, and people are less sympathetic if that's the case.