Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-27-2019, 09:52 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
It takes a village dude. Teachers taught your child, bus drivers got them to school. Police made sure the streets were safe for your kid...
Fine. You got me. I'm convinced. If babies aren't aborted, I now agree we should provide them with teachers to teach them, bus drivers to get them to school, and police to make sure the streets are safe for them.

We can close the thread now. All has been resolved.
  #52  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Let's take away the labels of "murder" and "pro-life"
Uh, "murder", unlike "pro-life", is something more than just a rhetorical "label": it's officially a crime. As Bryan Ekers pointed out, if somebody is trying to massively modify what counts as a crime in a society, and/or what the punishment for such a crime should be, while completely disregarding the predictable social consequences of that modification, that person is being wilfully irresponsible.

Similarly, anti-abortion conservatives who want to saddle our society with millions of unwanted babies by redefining abortion to be murder, without bothering to figure out any pragmatic way to address the massive support and care deficits that those unwanted babies will inevitably face, are being wilfully irresponsible.
  #53  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:47 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, hell, it's Memorial Day, so drink up.

Again, I'm not talking about welfare programs. I am trying to understand the underlying logic.

Pretend I make $5 million per year. Pretend I have $100 million in the bank. I don't need your money or the taxpayer's money to raise a child. I have enough to raise 100 children, okay?

Now, suppose I am a woman and become pregnant. The new abortion law says that I cannot have an abortion but must give birth to the child. Leaving aside that I can put the child up for adoption, assume that it means that I must now pay to raise the child for 18 years. Do the people that supported the abortion law owe me money?

If so, imagine the same except I have a 2 year old child. I would rather use the money for the next 16 years to buy exotic animals or use $100 bills to light my cigars instead of caring for the child. Since you make it illegal by your continued support of murder laws for me to forego this expense, shouldn't you pay me the costs of raising a child for 16 years?

Well obviously if you have lots of moneys you won't be eligible for food stamps, clothes donations and similar care packages so that's fine. As for the rest, your being loaded doesn't really factor in the availability of free schools, or free school lunches. Besides your being loaded means you (hopefully...) pay more taxes, which takes care of that "problem" : you're already paying more for the "free" school that the poor 15 year-old you and your moral buddies forced to keep a kid she didn't want.



The underlying logic isn't to "punish" anti-abortion folks (it's not like there's a "pro choice" deductible, is it ?), or to give every new parent the same amount of money out of some stupid notion of "equality". The underlying logic is that I, and everyone else, have a vested interest in living in a society of healthy, educated, hopefully not too fucked in the head people who don't need to steal my shit nor are driven to break my shit in anger and hopelessness. More babies means more food, school, training, buses, nurses and so on are needed ; means taxes will in turn need jacked up to pay for it. It's really not a complex, layered bit of thinking. No abortion means higher social costs means higher taxes. Anything else is schyzophrenic at best, and dysfunctional in the mid- to long run.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #54  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:54 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,622
I think that being human requires supporting other people. After all, they support us all the time.

But I guess I should take my socialist views someplace else...
  #55  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:06 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
Conservatives have no problem predicting the negative outcomes associated with other kinds of proposed laws.

Amnesty for illegal aliens? "OMG. All those terrorists and criminals and god-knows-what-else in our country, getting on welfare and pissing off all the good immigrants and stealing our jobs? No way!"

Subsidies for renewable energy? "OMG. What if the wind stops blowing and the clouds cover the sun? I won't be able to watch TV anymore!"

Expanded Medicare? "OMG. Our taxes are gonna go up just so some lazy unemployed hypochondriac can practically live in the doctor's office waiting room!"

Gun control? "OMG. We are gonna be sitting ducks for when another tyrant like that Obama takes over the White House. And all the illegal aliens will rape our women and we won't be able to defend them!"

But there are no horrible unintended costs associated with an abortion ban. All they can see are cute babies. They don't see dead or permanently crippled women. They don't see increased costs associated with ramped-up child protection services, foster care, mental health services, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system. And you better believe they will fight these increased costs with every grain of their being, repeating what UltraVires eloquently said (paraphrased): "WHY AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR KID?!"

These people have the audacity to tell us they are carrying out Jesus's will by banning abortion, and yet they say shit like this. It blows my mind how so many people can be so foolish.
  #56  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:09 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Let's say there was a huge epidemic of people killing their two-year-old kids. The first thing I'd want to find out is what the hell is going on. Are these normal parents? Are these normal two-year-olds?

Let's say the two-year-olds being killed are NOT normal two-year olds with normal problems. They are severely behaviorally disordered, and their behaviors are ruining their parents' lives.
That's a pretty bad analogy, because the vast majority of abortions in the US are done on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. So if your analogy was going to work, we would investigate and find that the two-year olds being killed are pretty average - no health issues, no behavior issues - their parents just don't want them.

Regards,
Shodan
  #57  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:31 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
...OMG. Our taxes are gonna go up...
... They don't see increased costs associated with ramped-up child protection services, foster care, mental health services, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system. And you better believe they will fight these increased costs with every grain of their being, repeating what UltraVires eloquently said (paraphrased): "WHY AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR KID?!"
Never mind the kid and abortion. All those things -- people in need of more investment in health care, justice, security issues? You know the position: "Consequences of YOUR bad life decisions, or your parents'. Too bad, life just is that way. Live with it or get over it. Don't tax me to pay for it."

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-28-2019 at 07:32 AM.
  #58  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:06 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Fine. You got me. I'm convinced. If babies aren't aborted, I now agree we should provide them with teachers to teach them, bus drivers to get them to school, and police to make sure the streets are safe for them.

We can close the thread now. All has been resolved.
Finally. That took far longer than we thought.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #59  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:07 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Disagree. What did you (the general you) do to help me take care of my child? Nothing. I (and her mother and our extended family) did that.
You and your family grew all the food that nourished your child?
You and your family made all the medicine to care for your child?
You and your family felled the trees, hewed the wood and built the home that sheltered your child?
You and your family wove the cloth that clothed your child?
You and your family gathered the fuel to warm your child in the winter, and built the machines to cool your child in the summer?

Of course you didn't. You played your part in our society, providing a service that you are skilled at providing and in exchange, other people, playing their parts of our society, provided things that they are skilled at providing, like food, shelter, fuel, education, and all the other things that families need to care for a child.
  #60  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:12 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So in your mind, "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Abortion" are distinctions without a difference?
Absolutely not. The "Pro-Choice" movement is not going around insisting that anyone has the right to order a pregnant woman to have an abortion. All they want is for women to have the choice to have a legal abortion.

Whoopi Goldberg is pro-choice, yet she supported her daughter's decision not to have an abortion. My sister and her legally wedded wife are all for women's rights, yet they took in their granddaughter and her twin babies and supported them.

It's all about legal abortion and CHOICE.

The fact that the "pro-choice" anti-abortion movement labels us "pro-abortion" shows how disgusting their tactics are.

Last edited by Annie-Xmas; 05-28-2019 at 08:13 AM.
  #61  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:51 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You and your family grew all the food that nourished your child?
You and your family made all the medicine to care for your child?
You and your family felled the trees, hewed the wood and built the home that sheltered your child?
You and your family wove the cloth that clothed your child?
You and your family gathered the fuel to warm your child in the winter, and built the machines to cool your child in the summer?

Of course you didn't. You played your part in our society, providing a service that you are skilled at providing and in exchange, other people, playing their parts of our society, provided things that they are skilled at providing, like food, shelter, fuel, education, and all the other things that families need to care for a child.
Of course he did. We have Bone over in the other thread stating that he hates Hillary Clinton for even suggesting that there is a community effort in raising our children. Anything that takes away from the fantasy that they are self made, that they are independent, that they did it all on their own digs deep into their insecurities and makes them lash out in a hate filled rage.

They don't want to do anything to support the communities that they are a part of, and they justify that by ignoring the ways that that community benefits them.

OTOH, they have no problem imposing their religious morality upon their communities, as, even if they don't give a shit about the actual welfare of those around the, they sure as hell are not going to grant them bodily autonomy or any sort of freedoms that may allow them to act in ways that anger their sky god. (while at the same time, with no self awareness whatsoever, shrieking about "Sharia Law")

Pro-life is a label. It is a label chosen by the leaders of the movement as a deceptive label. It is not deceptive to its opponents, no, we see right through that. It is to deceive its followers. The OP hit the nail on the head when he brought up PETA. I've met people who donated to PETA because they are for the ethical treatment of animals. They don't want people to look too hard at it, as when they do, when they find what PETA actually does stand for, they very quickly drop their support. "PETA" is a deceptive label. Many of those who label themselves "Pro-Life" do so out of the belief that they are following and supporting an organization that actually cares about life, that's why they picked that label for themselves. Would you rather be "pro-life" or "anti-life"?

They don't even care about these sparks of life that are conceived. Many fertilized eggs never even implant. If they truly believed that a soul is attached at the time of conception, and that loss of that egg means that a babies soul goes to purgatory, they'd be fighting and begging for people to use birth control. I have friends who have gotten pregnant intentionally. And they do all sorts of things, take all sorts of vitamins and do exactly the right kinds and quantities of exercise to maximize the chances that the egg gets implanted. Even a regular healthy person is going to have fewer eggs implanted, and therefore, send more baby souls to purgatory, than someone who is educated and trying to get pregnant. Many of these people that they look down upon are not as healthy, do not live as healthy a lifestyle, and so have even more of these sparks of life washed away with the rest of their uterine lining. Do they not care about all these baby souls? No, they do not.

All they care about is that if you are pregnant, then you *must* carry that baby to term. There is no other care. They don't care if the mother dies in childbirth, they don't care if the baby dies 5 minutes after it is born. They only care that that baby gets delivered.

And that is because it is not about the babies, it is not about life, it isn't even about pleasing their sky god. It is about control. Not just of women, but of society. It is about imposing their morality upon others.

So, no, as they do not support any sort of policy that could honestly be described as "pro-life", they have no interest in supporting the hussies and whores that have babies outside of their approved marriage, they just want those hussies and whores to be forced to pay for their sinning ways, and they have no problem with causing that life that they claimed was so sacred to be tormented and tortured in order to make her pay for her sins.

Then of course, there are the secular reasons for wanting many unwanted pregnancies to come to term. That more feed for the prison system and for the military. They don't care which that baby goes into, they will profit either way. The people who profit off of unwanted babies certainly don't want a safety net, as alleviating that poverty and desperation would interrupt the flow of babies going to for profit prisons or fighting in wars for profit. And they are the ones that create and disseminate deceptions like "pro-life" in order to get people to help to enrich them at the expense of the community.

Most pro-lifers, I would say, *are* actually pro-life. They believe in things that would help these babies become functionally productive members of society. They would favor things that would make being a single mother a palatable task. But they buy into the label, they allow themselves to be deceived, and they are used to advance agendas and policies that would actually be antithetical to what they actually believed, if they are not deceived by that well chosen and extremely dishonest label. If they actually took a good honest look at the policies that they were supporting, they would distance themselves, as people who care about animals distance themselves from PETA once they learn what they are actually all about.
  #62  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:42 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You and your family grew all the food that nourished your child?
You and your family made all the medicine to care for your child?
You and your family felled the trees, hewed the wood and built the home that sheltered your child?
You and your family wove the cloth that clothed your child?
You and your family gathered the fuel to warm your child in the winter, and built the machines to cool your child in the summer?

Of course you didn't.
No, of course I didn't. I earned the money that paid other people to do those things. All the money. I also paid taxes, which more than covered my share of my use of the government infrastructure and services, as well as for other people who didn't or couldn't pay their share.

So not only did I pay my own way, I paid for others.

Maybe it takes a village, but if the village ain't made up of people like me, on average, then the village ain't going to be able to raise many children.

Regards,
Shodan
  #63  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:43 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Disagree. What did you (the general you) do to help me take care of my child? Nothing. I (and her mother and our extended family) did that. So why should I be responsible for taking care of someone else's child?
If you have zero responsibility for other people’s children (and they have none for yours), then that is all the more reason for you to have a laissez faire attitude towards abortion. The government should only concern itself with things that quantifiably impacts the public. What is and isn’t growing inside a stranger’s uterus right now impacts no one but the uterus’s owner.

If abortion is banned tomorrow and there is a dramatic rise in the number of kids that require free lunch, Medicaid, subsidized day care, and other social services, what should we expect pro-life supporters to be in favor of? Increased government spending to cover these growing costs, so that innocent kids can get the resources they need to become productive citizens? Or should we expect pro-lifers to sit back and watch these kids suffer from deprivation and later grow to be dysfunctional adults, all in the name of “why should I be responsible for taking care of someone’s child?!” It seems like the safest bet is the latter...which should be worrisome regardless of one’s position on abortion. We are all impacted if the number of dysfunctional adults increase, because it means more crime. More suffering for the living.

Sure, no one who is pro-life is required to “be on the hook” (to use the OP’s phrase) for other people’s kids. But if you’re trying to convince someone your anti-abortion position is truly about protecting life and ensuring it’s survival, you can’t just talk. Talk is extremely cheap.

Last edited by you with the face; 05-28-2019 at 09:44 AM.
  #64  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:06 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,367
It's not so much that a person who is pro-life doesn't support social programs for children, it's that groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children.

It's this trend that suggests the pro-life movement, the core reasoning behind the movement, isn't based on compassion for babies. If it was, you would think that this would come out in some way, that pro-life groups would tend to support other "I love babies" political positions, but they are nowhere to be found.

So, if you oppose abortion, you don't have to support babies after the fact. However, if you don't, please don't expect me to believe that your opposition is based on compassion for the helpless little babe.
  #65  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:30 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, of course I didn't. I earned the money that paid other people to do those things. All the money. I also paid taxes, which more than covered my share of my use of the government infrastructure and services, as well as for other people who didn't or couldn't pay their share.

So not only did I pay my own way, I paid for others.

Maybe it takes a village, but if the village ain't made up of people like me, on average, then the village ain't going to be able to raise many children.

Regards,
Shodan
No, you did something that a member of society decided that it values, and therefore, rewarded with a greater share of the community's resources, denoted by little pieces of paper that you get to wave around and trade for other people to do things that you find valuable.

Outside of a society, outside of a community that values your contribution, you did not earn a damn thing.

Unless you live by hunting on territory that you defend from invaders yourself, you do not "earn" anything yourself. Society created the framework in which you can use your skills to enrich yourself.

Our ancestors paid your way, all we ask is that you pay the way for our descendants.
  #66  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:44 AM
Sitnam is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,042
Abortion is a choice. If others want a mother to be to make a different one, it stands to reason they make other options more viable for the mother. Its silly to pretend otherwise. The PETA example is a good one. If PETA people would like drugs tested some other way, they have the obligation to provide a viable alternative.
  #67  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:45 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It's not so much that a person who is pro-life doesn't support social programs for children, it's that groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children.
Do you have a cite for this, or "seemingly" unfalsifiable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, you did something that a member of society decided that it values, and therefore, rewarded with a greater share of the community's resources, denoted by little pieces of paper that you get to wave around and trade for other people to do things that you find valuable.
It's good to know that we all understand how fiat currency works.
Quote:
Outside of a society, outside of a community that values your contribution, you did not earn a damn thing.
Thanks for your insight. And you are correct - I earned the money where I earned it, instead of somewhere else. What that has to do with anything is rather a mystery, but at least you recognize that I earned the money.
Quote:
Our ancestors paid your way, all we ask is that you pay the way for our descendants.
Already done. As mentioned, I paid significantly more, on average, than I received in government services. And my taxes already go to pay for bonds issued by the government.

Regards,
Shodan
  #68  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:48 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,158
Most of the radical anti-abortion folks I've talked to believe that as long as only women pregnant with unwanted fetuses are willing to carry them to term and give them to the "right" (straight, married, Christian couples) couples, everything would be la-la perfect.

I personally wish every woman considering abortion would have the chld and give it to a gay or lesbian couple.
  #69  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:59 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Do you have a cite for this, or "seemingly" unfalsifiable?
I could just say Republicans, if that makes it better.

Republicans want to criminalize abortions, Republicans want to cut WIC, Republicans want to cut Food Stamps, Republicans want to cut free school lunches.

Republicans want us to believe that criminalizing abortions is about their "wuv for widdle babies", but I really can't think of any other position they have that professes this "wuv" which confuses and infuriates me!*



*note, this paraphrased Futurama quote is for my own amusement
  #70  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:19 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's good to know that we all understand how fiat currency works.
Right, but it seems that there are those who think that they did everything on their own that think that a fiat currency has any sort of value outside of the community that gives it value.
Quote:
Thanks for your insight. And you are correct - I earned the money where I earned it, instead of somewhere else. What that has to do with anything is rather a mystery, but at least you recognize that I earned the money.
No, you did not "earn" that money. That money was granted to you in exchange for the services that someone else asked you to do. In order to have "earned" that money, you would have had to have not only founded the company yourself, but developed the technology that it uses, the software and language compilers that it uses, basic computer science, and well, computers themselves.
Quote:

Already done. As mentioned, I paid significantly more, on average, than I received in government services. And my taxes already go to pay for bonds issued by the government.
That's what many people seem to think, when they look at the direct payouts of what they receive in govt services, but they don't think anything about where else their tax dollar goes. Do you receive the govt service of being in a country that is not at risk of being invaded by belligerents? Are you granted the govt service of living in a stable economy where money is worth more than its BTU value in keeping you warm? Do you rely on the govt service of educating and providing for those who do not receive as great as compensation for their contributions to society which prevents them from rioting through your neighborhood?

How much is that worth to you? If you had to use gold to pay mercenaries to protect you from enemies, both foreign and domestic, and you had to earn that gold through actually going out and mining it yourself, how well would you really do?

That's the beauty of a community, we actually all get out far more than we put in. You seem to think that it is unfair that you put in more, and that others less deserving receive more, but that's just the thing, if we all actually got what we deserved, we'd still be hunting and gathering and keeping what we foraged to ourselves. It is only with community and cooperation that we can work to make computer programming jobs that give a greater financial reward. We *all* get more than we deserve, and that only works as long as we keep making sure that everyone gets more than they deserve.

It really is a positive sum game that we are playing, and the only way to lose is to turn it into a negative sum game, and the only way to do that is to make sure that no one gets any more than they "deserve."

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 12:21 PM.
  #71  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:57 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Right, but it seems that there are those who think that they did everything on their own that think that a fiat currency has any sort of value outside of the community that gives it value.

No, you did not "earn" that money. That money was granted to you in exchange for the services that someone else asked you to do. In order to have "earned" that money, you would have had to have not only founded the company yourself, but developed the technology that it uses, the software and language compilers that it uses, basic computer science, and well, computers themselves.


That's what many people seem to think, when they look at the direct payouts of what they receive in govt services, but they don't think anything about where else their tax dollar goes. Do you receive the govt service of being in a country that is not at risk of being invaded by belligerents? Are you granted the govt service of living in a stable economy where money is worth more than its BTU value in keeping you warm? Do you rely on the govt service of educating and providing for those who do not receive as great as compensation for their contributions to society which prevents them from rioting through your neighborhood?

How much is that worth to you? If you had to use gold to pay mercenaries to protect you from enemies, both foreign and domestic, and you had to earn that gold through actually going out and mining it yourself, how well would you really do?

That's the beauty of a community, we actually all get out far more than we put in. You seem to think that it is unfair that you put in more, and that others less deserving receive more, but that's just the thing, if we all actually got what we deserved, we'd still be hunting and gathering and keeping what we foraged to ourselves. It is only with community and cooperation that we can work to make computer programming jobs that give a greater financial reward. We *all* get more than we deserve, and that only works as long as we keep making sure that everyone gets more than they deserve.

It really is a positive sum game that we are playing, and the only way to lose is to turn it into a negative sum game, and the only way to do that is to make sure that no one gets any more than they "deserve."
I don't understand the point of this socialist screed. The OP opened the argument for debate that if a person is pro-life then he should pay for the cost of caring for the unwanted children. Shodan stated that not only does he pay for his own children, through his taxes he pays for social welfare programs for other children.

But that's not enough apparently because he uses fiat currency. What is the bottom line? Pro-lifers should deposit gold in the town bank? I know that's not it and I'm being snarky, but what exactly is the point you are trying to make. Assuming we are against legal abortion, what monetary contribution needs to be made and to whom?
  #72  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:04 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I could just say Republicans, if that makes it better.
No, I am afraid that doesn't help.

You made a pretty specific claim - "groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children." I was hoping for a specific cite for that claim. A cite, for instance, that National Right to Life or the Roman Catholic church wants to cut WIC, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #73  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, I am afraid that doesn't help.

You made a pretty specific claim - "groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children." I was hoping for a specific cite for that claim. A cite, for instance, that National Right to Life or the Roman Catholic church wants to cut WIC, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan
I think that this is far afield of what we are debating. Let's assume that the National Right to Life opposes social welfare programs in all forms. That is a different debate, whether the poor should be helped through government programs or private charity, than whether abortion should be legal.

And it is even further different from the debate in this thread regarding how if I support a law that costs you money, that I should pay you for it.
  #74  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:25 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You and your family grew all the food that nourished your child?
You and your family made all the medicine to care for your child?
You and your family felled the trees, hewed the wood and built the home that sheltered your child?
You and your family wove the cloth that clothed your child?
You and your family gathered the fuel to warm your child in the winter, and built the machines to cool your child in the summer?

Of course you didn't. You played your part in our society, providing a service that you are skilled at providing and in exchange, other people, playing their parts of our society, provided things that they are skilled at providing, like food, shelter, fuel, education, and all the other things that families need to care for a child.
I agree. But what is the point of this? These people did not give me these things out of charity, they did so because I paid them.

Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor? Again, not that we shouldn't have morality, compassion and treat those less fortunate with a helping hand, but it doesn't follow just because we have specialized our trades.

I pay the lumberjack and the contractor fair value for what they put into building my house. I don't pay him extra because under the new law his wife cannot have an abortion.
  #75  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:50 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I pay the lumberjack and the contractor fair value for what they put into building my house. I don't pay him extra because under the new law his wife cannot have an abortion.
It all comes down to money, doesn't it?

Fine.

You can either pay him not a penny more while not denying he and his wife the right to an abortion.

OR, you can pay more taxes to send his kid to public school.

I know for damn sure you're not going to happily hand over money for the kid's healthcare.

But OOPS, your cost for medical insurance and services will go up anyway when the kid ends up at the emergency room for a serious sinus infection that could have been prevented by a GP whom the family could not afford to visit because you refused to pay extra for contractor services.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #76  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:51 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't understand the point of this socialist screed. The OP opened the argument for debate that if a person is pro-life then he should pay for the cost of caring for the unwanted children. Shodan stated that not only does he pay for his own children, through his taxes he pays for social welfare programs for other children.
I have learned recently that many conservatives are violently hostile to the idea that it takes a village, as it feeds into some sort of insecurity that they have that they didn't actually do everything themself.

If you do not understand that we need to work together, then you have a vested interest in not understanding that we need to work together.

You are correct that the OP states that if a person is pro-life that they should be willing to assist in the consequences that would come about if they successfully impose their morality through legislation upon their communities, but that is only because he is under the impression that pro-life means that they give a shit about life, or about women, or about the babies that come as a result of their policies.

It is correct that you can oppose abortion, while still not giving a shit that your proposed policies will make your community a lesser place. Same with people who advocate against paying enough taxes to fund the services that they demand. You don't have to be consistent to advocate for a policy. You don't have to care about the consequences of your actions when it comes to policies, and pro-lifers don't.

It is just that the OP, along with many who follow the "pro-life" movement, actually keep thinking that htat label was not chosen as diametric opposite of the actual effects of the desired policies. It is a common mistake, one that is repeated oft times because some of the followers of the pro-life movement also actually think that it cares about life, and then they go and claim that *they* care about life, in opposition to the actual movements policies and desires, threatening to blow up the whole gig.
Quote:
But that's not enough apparently because he uses fiat currency. What is the bottom line? Pro-lifers should deposit gold in the town bank? I know that's not it and I'm being snarky, but what exactly is the point you are trying to make. Assuming we are against legal abortion, what monetary contribution needs to be made and to whom?
It's not that hard to figure out, I wouldn't think. You can figure out whatever you want to figure out, but I am willing to support my community through taxes.

And it is not just that I will pay those taxes, it is that I will vote for those taxes to be increased. I vote for school levies, I vote for police levies, I vote for mental health levies. I even vote for senior assistance levies.

I advocate for an adequate school system, universal healthcare, and a robust safety net. These are things that are not just not adequately in place, they are als things that the "pro-life" people are fighting against.

As the venn diagram of the "pro-life" cohort neatly overlaps that of the cohort who wants to gut public schools, have already destroyed our attempt at a UHC, and are going after the little support that a less fortunate family has left, then it is plain to see that those who oppose abortion not only are not willing to support those who are effected by their policies, but they are trying to take away what little support there already is.
  #77  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:07 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Right, but it seems that there are those who think that they did everything on their own that think that a fiat currency has any sort of value outside of the community that gives it value.
You must be confusing this thread with some other. No one has posted anything like this.
Quote:
No, you did not "earn" that money. That money was granted to you in exchange for the services that someone else asked you to do.
That's what "earning money" means. So, yes, I did earn it.
Quote:
In order to have "earned" that money, you would have had to have not only founded the company yourself, but developed the technology that it uses, the software and language compilers that it uses, basic computer science, and well, computers themselves.
None of this has any relevance to whether I earned my money or not. I contracted with a company to perform certain services. In return, they agreed to pay me (in fiat currency, because that's how modern economies work). If I performed the services, then I earned the money.
Quote:
That's what many people seem to think, when they look at the direct payouts of what they receive in govt services, but they don't think anything about where else their tax dollar goes. Do you receive the govt service of being in a country that is not at risk of being invaded by belligerents?
Yes, I sure did. Police protection too. I also paid my taxes, which went to pay for the police and the military (and the courts).
Quote:
Are you granted the govt service of living in a stable economy where money is worth more than its BTU value in keeping you warm?
Yes, I sure did. I also paid my utility bills.
Quote:
Do you rely on the govt service of educating and providing for those who do not receive as great as compensation for their contributions to society which prevents them from rioting through your neighborhood?
Yes, my taxes also went to pay for that. And, as mentioned, I paid more than the amount needed, to make up for the fact that others do not or cannot pay for their share.
Quote:
How much is that worth to you? If you had to use gold to pay mercenaries to protect you from enemies, both foreign and domestic, and you had to earn that gold through actually going out and mining it yourself, how well would you really do?
I'm sure I would do very poorly. Fortunately, this has no relevance.
Quote:
That's the beauty of a community, we actually all get out far more than we put in.
This, of course, is entirely false, as a few seconds thought will show.

TANSTAAFL. If everybody got more in government services than they paid for, on average, the system would be unsustainable. "Buy at seven, sell at five, make up the difference on volume" doesn't work.

Regards,
Shodan
  #78  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:14 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor?
I thought all human life had inherent value. Isn't that kind of central to the whole "pro-life" thing? Or is it only all unborn life has value? Does your value reduce to zero at the moment of birth?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #79  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:24 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor?

Go back to Rapture, splicer.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #80  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This, of course, is entirely false, as a few seconds thought will show.

TANSTAAFL. If everybody got more in government services than they paid for, on average, the system would be unsustainable. "Buy at seven, sell at five, make up the difference on volume" doesn't work.
Your mistake is that assuming "get more out" of and "put in" when speaking about community are both simply about dollars. There are many things that you can get out of and put into your community that have nothing to do with money. What do we get out of our communities? Fellowship, a sense of belonging, common purpose, lifting each other up when we fall, looking out for each other, shared experiences. These are also things that we put into our communities, however since we are each just one person, clearly we benefit much more from these things than we can ever put in ourselves. Humans learned long ago the value of living together in communities, and it is about much more than just $.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 05-28-2019 at 02:25 PM.
  #81  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:28 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This, of course, is entirely false, as a few seconds thought will show.
Then you don't believe in a growing economy.
Quote:
TANSTAAFL. If everybody got more in government services than they paid for, on average, the system would be unsustainable. "Buy at seven, sell at five, make up the difference on volume" doesn't work.
This would only be true if the value that you receive is equal to the money that you paid. This is something that is almost never true in transactions, otherwise, why would people participate in them? For instance, what value do you place on not being invaded by Canada? Is it more or less than your taxes? Unless you really don't mind oppression under a maple rule, you would be willing to pay more than your currently do to keep Canada out of your backyard, therefore, you are getting more value in services than you are paying, just on that alone.


If I have a widget that cost me $0.25 to make, and that you would be willing to pay $1.00 to own for your own use, and I sell it to you for $0.50, then who got more out of the transaction?

This really is basic economics here. Do you really think that a few seconds thought on your part is going to disprove over a hundred years of economic theory?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #82  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:39 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, I sure did. Police protection too. I also paid my taxes, which went to pay for the police and the military (and the courts).
Yes, I sure did. I also paid my utility bills.
Yes, my taxes also went to pay for that. And, as mentioned, I paid more than the amount needed, to make up for the fact that others do not or cannot pay for their share.
And of those taxes, are you willing to pay more, or do you advocate for and elect politicians that would have you pay less? If the former, then great, we're on the same side, for the most part. I suspect, however, you are of the latter, and you would rather pay less to support your community than you currently do.

Is this a proper assumption on my part, that you would support paying less in taxes?

ETA:Also, you do get out more than you put in in pure dollars because we are currently running a pretty massive deficit, meaning that your grandchildren are currently the ones that are paying for you to receive tax breaks.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 02:43 PM.
  #83  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:48 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. But what is the point of this?
The point is that you had LOTS of help caring for your children. This is in stark contrast to the "nothing" that you claimed that others did to help.
Quote:
These people did not give me these things out of charity, they did so because I paid them.
That makes them "hired help". Not "no help". People who did lots of things to help you care for your children in exchange for money, not people who did "nothing" to help you care for your children.

I point this out because the "I did all this all by myself" is a shitty attitude that has no purpose but to devalue other human beings, and make it OK for those people to suffer because they aren't as "self sufficient" as you imagine yourself to be.


Quote:
Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor? Again, not that we shouldn't have morality, compassion and treat those less fortunate with a helping hand, but it doesn't follow just because we have specialized our trades.
Of course, you're not arguing that we shouldn't have morality or compassion, you'll just argue that it's unnecessary and really should you have compassion and give of the fruits of your labor to people who "did not provide any value"?

Goodness, what should we do with these valueless people?
  #84  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:49 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,673
Soylent green?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #85  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:55 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor?

OK, for a more serious answer : you're barking up the wrong tree, pilgrim. Quoth Clint Eastwood, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". It's not about who's entitled to what. It's about if you don't provide a safety net, if you don't provide help to the people who need it, you're hurting yourself and your own kids in the long run (nevermind hurting them in the shortest of runs, I surmise you don't give a shit).

Your "no abortion but I won't pay shit for SHIT !" ideas inevitably result in a) more healthcare costs b) more crime c) more drug use d) more crime as a result of drug use. Dysfunctional homes result in dysfunctional children, and antisocial politics harm the fabric of society. I know, weird, right ? Who woulda thunk. And since anti-abortion policies demonstrably saddle poor families with more, long term, unmitigatable financial burdens (because the historical practice of exposure isn't OK any more ; and foster care is its own brand of hell... but not free hell) then they must, perforce, also result in higher social expenditures. That is, if you're at all invested in keeping a functional society long term. I know that's falling out of fashion compared to "fuck it, I want all the money now and après moi le déluge". But then again that's why I'm heavily investing in guillotine futures.



Or, in other words, no man is an island yadda yadda.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #86  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:08 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor?
Do children not provide any value to society?

Does caring for children not provide any value to society?

Hint: a society that doesn't care for its children won't last any longer than it takes its currently youngest adult members to die out. And the end of their lives (as well as probably much of the rest of their lives) will be nasty.
  #87  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:15 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
OK, for a more serious answer : you're barking up the wrong tree, pilgrim. Quoth Clint Eastwood, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". It's not about who's entitled to what. It's about if you don't provide a safety net, if you don't provide help to the people who need it, you're hurting yourself and your own kids in the long run (nevermind hurting them in the shortest of runs, I surmise you don't give a shit).

Your "no abortion but I won't pay shit for SHIT !" ideas inevitably result in a) more healthcare costs b) more crime c) more drug use d) more crime as a result of drug use. Dysfunctional homes result in dysfunctional children, and antisocial politics harm the fabric of society. I know, weird, right ? Who woulda thunk. And since anti-abortion policies demonstrably saddle poor families with more, long term, unmitigatable financial burdens (because the historical practice of exposure isn't OK any more ; and foster care is its own brand of hell... but not free hell) then they must, perforce, also result in higher social expenditures. That is, if you're at all invested in keeping a functional society long term. I know that's falling out of fashion compared to "fuck it, I want all the money now and après moi le déluge". But then again that's why I'm heavily investing in guillotine futures.
Unless of course, that is actually the goal.

We sometimes make the mistake, as we look around at our allies and see that we all want to create a better society and a better world, that our political opponents do too.

We think that because we have disagreements with others who want to make a better world as to what that world would look like and how to get there, that the people on the other side of the aisle share in our desire to make a better world, and it is simply honest disagreement in how to get there.

Or rather, our views on what is a better world are so far apart that they cannot be reconciled. They want hell on earth for those they deem as sinners. They are not willing to leave it to their god to punish those who go against their moral desires, they want to see them suffer in this world right here and now. They are willing to reduce their own quality of life to ensure that those who "deserve it" will live in dehumanizing conditions. They are willing to let actual babies who have been born suffer and even die horribly to act a punishment to their wanton sinful mothers. And they want the cycle to continue, for if all sinners were "reformed", then to whom would they glower down upon in smug self righteousness?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 03:16 PM.
  #88  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:30 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Of course he did. We have Bone over in the other thread stating that he hates Hillary Clinton for even suggesting that there is a community effort in raising our children. Anything that takes away from the fantasy that they are self made, that they are independent, that they did it all on their own digs deep into their insecurities and makes them lash out in a hate filled rage.
Your caricatures are funny. And by funny, I mean inane.
  #89  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:47 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Your caricatures are funny. And by funny, I mean inane.
Would you like to say what I got wrong there, or are you just going to leave it at a mindless and idiotic quip and act self satisfied in your self perceived prowess?

You did say that that was the reason that you hate Hillary Clinton, so that's not wrong.

You make claims to being self made, to being independent, to having earned everything you have on your own, so that's right on point.

And you get very upset when someone points out that those claims are ludicrous.

It's not a caricature, it is a painstaking portrait of your positions, and I wish it was funny, but knowing that there are those who would work towards the destruction of everything that others have built just so that they can have the largest share of the ashes that are left only gives me the laughter you hear at the gallows.
  #90  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:01 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is no more ridiculous than criticizing the term "pro-life" because we don't support life in every single context. Feel free to say that we are pro-just in that one case-life.
OK, bur remember your justification is that it's supposedly a person from the moment the sperm bonks into the egg. So you're pro-fetal-life because you're supposedly pro-human-person-life.

That's your 'just one case.' Human persons.
  #91  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:11 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, I am afraid that doesn't help.

You made a pretty specific claim - "groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children." I was hoping for a specific cite for that claim. A cite, for instance, that National Right to Life or the Roman Catholic church wants to cut WIC, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan
How about white evangelical voters? They vote anti-abortion, and they vote anti-any government programs to help their fellow human beings in material ways. Other than maybe tax cuts, which don't do much good for people in need.

And the Catholic vote is gradually solidifying as Republican as well.
  #92  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:15 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
They are pro-fetal life until it costs them some money. A well-respected conservative economist could estimate that 50% of abortions could be prevented if everyone paid an extra dollar in income taxes to support social welfare programs, and those "pro-fetal-life" people would be marching in the streets in their tea party costumes to protest such a "scheme".

They just want to have another excuse to build more prisons. That and the military are the only government expenditures they gladly embrace. And oh yeah, welfare for farmers is totally fine too. Welfare for babies is bad, though.
  #93  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:21 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's a pretty bad analogy, because the vast majority of abortions in the US are done on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. So if your analogy was going to work, we would investigate and find that the two-year olds being killed are pretty average - no health issues, no behavior issues - their parents just don't want them.

Regards,
Shodan
There's the obvious rebuttal that if a parent decides they don't want to be responsible for their two-year-old child, they can dump them off at an orphanage. A two-year-old has an independent life.

A fetus does not. Saying you want to keep a fetus alive means you have to compel a woman to allow her body to be used for that purpose.
  #94  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:26 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A lot of pro-choicers like to argue that if pro-lifers were really pro-life, they'd be supporting babies and single mothers, etc. after birth, not just caring about the fetus' life pre-birth but then ignoring it post-birth.

I fully agree with that - however, just because someone opposes abortion, does not logically mean that they are on the hook to take care of someone after birth. The closest analogy would be PETA. PETA opposes animal experimentation and the killing of animals; however, that does not mean that PETA is ethically obligated to feed, care for, and host all the animals that would be released if the farmers and animal-experimenters really were to release the animals. The ethical obligation of PETA, from their perspective, is simply to stop the "animal abuse." What happens after the abuse or killing is ceased, is not their responsibility.


Again, I fully agree that pro-lifers should do more to care for mothers and post-birth babies, but the idea that if you speak out against something you consider wrong, means you are therefore obligated to do Thing A, Thing B, Thing C, etc. in caring and responsibility doesn't make sense. That would be like saying that you can't object to your neighbors abusing their kids if you aren't willing to rear and raise their kids yourself.
Let me offer you a batter analogy. Suppose somebody says they are opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept the responsibility of taking custody of a maximum security prisoner. The fact that they are unwilling to do the latter doesn't mean their commitment to the former is insincere or hypocritical.
  #95  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:40 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Let me offer you a batter analogy. Suppose somebody says they are opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept the responsibility of taking custody of a maximum security prisoner. The fact that they are unwilling to do the latter doesn't mean their commitment to the former is insincere or hypocritical.
Thanks, that is indeed a better analogy. Just because someone objects to Thing X, doesn't mean they are obligated to shoulder the costs or responsibility of what happens if Thing X is prevented or banned.
  #96  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:47 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, if you oppose abortion, you don't have to support babies after the fact. However, if you don't, please don't expect me to believe that your opposition is based on compassion for the helpless little babe.
This. My standard phrasing is something like, "I'll know whether to take seriously your claims of compassion for the unborn by your regard for the well-being of those already born."

There are anti-choice types who pass that test, but by and large they majorly flunk.

A few years ago - and this should be an easy one for them - white evangelical voters at least gave lip service to being for taking in refugees from other countries. In the era of Trump, of course, that's now ancient history.
  #97  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:01 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A lot of pro-choicers like to argue that if pro-lifers were really pro-life, they'd be supporting babies and single mothers, etc. after birth, not just caring about the fetus' life pre-birth but then ignoring it post-birth.

I fully agree with that - however, just because someone opposes abortion, does not logically mean that they are on the hook to take care of someone after birth. The closest analogy would be PETA. PETA opposes animal experimentation and the killing of animals; however, that does not mean that PETA is ethically obligated to feed, care for, and host all the animals that would be released if the farmers and animal-experimenters really were to release the animals. The ethical obligation of PETA, from their perspective, is simply to stop the "animal abuse." What happens after the abuse or killing is ceased, is not their responsibility.


Again, I fully agree that pro-lifers should do more to care for mothers and post-birth babies, but the idea that if you speak out against something you consider wrong, means you are therefore obligated to do Thing A, Thing B, Thing C, etc. in caring and responsibility doesn't make sense. That would be like saying that you can't object to your neighbors abusing their kids if you aren't willing to rear and raise their kids yourself.
That is a deeply, seriously flawed argument, because prohibitions on abortion and child and family health and welfare are very closely interlinked social policy issues, and the former has direct implications for the latter. The blatant hypocrisy among so-called pro-lifers is that the "life" they are so zealously "pro" about is, at best, a highly contentious matter of faith that a zygote or something non-sentient the size of a pomegranate seed is "human life" requiring legal protection, while the absolutely uncontroversial life of an actual human child or its mother is somebody else's problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Let me offer you a batter analogy. Suppose somebody says they are opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept the responsibility of taking custody of a maximum security prisoner. The fact that they are unwilling to do the latter doesn't mean their commitment to the former is insincere or hypocritical.
That's also a bad analogy, because the presumed consequence is completely unrealistic and never happens. The appropriate analogy illustrating the hypocrisy of irrationally opposed views on related social policies would be opposing capital punishment while refusing to provide funding for any necessary prison expansion or other remediation of overcrowding issues.
  #98  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:09 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post

That's also a bad analogy, because the presumed consequence is completely unrealistic and never happens. The appropriate analogy illustrating the hypocrisy of irrationally opposed views on related social policies would be opposing capital punishment while refusing to provide funding for any necessary prison expansion or other remediation of overcrowding issues.
Another analogy would be opposing prisons altogether while shrugging one's shoulders over the inevitable uptick in crime.

Or opposing mental hospitals while being blasé over all the severely disturbed people who will inevitably become burdens on family and the criminal justice system.
  #99  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Sixty percent of Americans believe it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone has health care: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...esponsibility/

Sixty percent also believe rich people are undertaxed:
https://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

54 percent believe either "Abortion should not be permitted" or "Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now." This was even after the recent abortion "heartbeat laws" were passed: https://www.pollingreport.com/aborti...PRQ-D33Q6DO94U

These kinds of views are nowhere near as mutually exclusive as many people seem to imagine. And the sizable group that holds these views simultaneously is disproportionately likely to be decisive in battleground elections.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-28-2019 at 06:29 PM.
  #100  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:43 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sixty percent of Americans believe it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone has health care: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...esponsibility/

Sixty percent also believe rich people are undertaxed:
https://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

54 percent believe either "Abortion should not be permitted" or "Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now." This was even after the recent abortion "heartbeat laws" were passed: https://www.pollingreport.com/aborti...PRQ-D33Q6DO94U

These kinds of views are nowhere near as mutually exclusive as many people seem to imagine. And the sizable group that holds these views simultaneously is disproportionately likely to be decisive in battleground elections.
Those kinds of statistics kind of miss the point. Those states like Georgia with outrageous abortion prohibitions -- what is the political ideology of the ruling party? What's the political ideology of those other states hoping that the legal challenges to their madness make it to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade? Those states that refused Medicaid expansion even when the feds were paying -- what was the political ideology in charge there? What was the political ideology recently pulling all the stops to kill the ACA, and replace it with ... nothing? What's the political ideology that even now is making major cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, even as politically like-minded states pass draconian anti-abortion laws?

This is the hypocrisy that absolutely pervades the Republican party, even if positions on some of these issues sometimes cross party lines.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017