And politely arguing that murdering an unborn human being is morally permissible, is evil.
See how easy I just turned you into some maniacal, lunatic murderer? I was, of course, going out on a limb that you are pro-choice…but after observing your disdain for conservatives, I feel my intuition has served me well. Regardless, the point still stands, however.
Clearly I don’t think that you are, as a person, those things I just labeled you. When people take something they really believe in, something which is believed in for good reasons, and utterly sensationalize it, they make mistakes akin to the one you just did–assuming that an entire country’s problems are the fault of half its population.
The Protestants and Catholics in northern Ireland at one point came to the same conclusion you have…“obsession with…“respect” is a distraction from this fact.” For violence is what it ultimately comes down to when the “other side” is “evil” and won’t take up your point of view. So many people in the U.S, on both sides of the issues, claim that there is value in “respect,” because otherwise our views just become blind fury. Now under your system of thinking, I should be labeling you as a murderer and child killer, because you are like the same types who live in Ireland. Obviously, I would be sensationalizing things.
I think that the majority of the liberals in this country are doing more harm then good to it. I don’t think, that these people are “evil,” (that would be excluding Michael Moore, of course.)
I think a majority of the conservatives in this country are doing more harm then good to it. Some of them do it for evil reasons, such as greed or bigotry, but most are just ignorant.
Well if I may be so bold as to respond with literary jargon…
…Um…no.
Correct me if I’m wrong, by all means; but last time I checked, our government has ruled that its citizens are entitled to government subsidized Health care. Not sex. You may quick to tell me, as Fluke did the board, that some people can’t have sex without contraception without incurring for some sort of health risks. A terrible tragedy, no doubt. But as hard as it may be to stomach…such folks might have to withhold sex from themselves until they can pay five dollars for a pack of condoms, instead of making all the rest of us burden their sex drives. There are probably thousands of couples in the U.S right now who wish they could have a child, but don’t because of the fact that they don’t have the financial means. That shouldn’t then make me want to lobby the government to force it to pay for this issue, which of course is a sad one. It should make me think that those people should work as hard as they can to put themselves in a situation in which it is feasible.
Do I personally think its outrageous to ask the governments and/or universities to provide contraception in their programs? No, not really. But if they’re crunching their numbers, and saying they don’t think its reasonable to ask, then I concede the issue to them. They have thousands of people to provide for, in various ways. Far be it from me to tell them they’re jerks for being fiscally responsible with the little money they are given to provide for the masses.
But I suppose I will concede that you caught me inferring. Let me perhaps be clearer. Now you should probably realize that is does no good to pretend this issue does not pertain to taxpayers…but I suppose I won’t bother getting into it, because I think what you’re implying is that Fluke was referring to her school’s insurance company. So let me try to explain how that works.
If I’m going to George Town Law school, I am going to be paying a fee for being taught there, naturally. Fluke argued that the health insurance she was paying for should provide her with contraception, because, naturally, it wasn’t. Now the money that I’m paying, and the money she is paying, and the money everyone else at that school is paying, is what the school then has to divy out to the certain departments and services to provide the students with what they need (ruling out prof. salaries, of whom most claim to be too little, as we all know). This naturally includes healthcare, as provided by whatever private firm they have. This means that school has to actually give this firm money, in order to receive the insurance. If the insurance covered contraception for any and all students, then the price the firm would demand from the university would go up, which means the price the university demanded from the students would go up, which ultimately means that I now have to pay more money to go to Law school.
Sandra Fluke didn’t even talk about her own healthcare needs. This means the many people calling her a slut are too lazy and stupid to even find out what she said.
And there’s no “George Town.” If you want to speculate about what students there do, you should at least learn the name of the University.
Instead it’s, “I don’t know who this person is and no so little about the organization she was discussing I don’t know how many words it is, but hey I HAVE AN OPINION”
No, you failed to do so. Abortion isn’t murder; Condescending Robot’s comments are reality based, yours isn’t.
And opposing abortion rights is evil. It has nothing to do with “protecting the unborn”; it is about abusing, tormenting and killing women. Being polite on the subject is in no way admirable. And even if it was, the anti-abortion side is not remotely polite. They are bigots, bullies, thugs and murderers.
The real tragicomedy is that his argument fails even if one accepts the absurd premise that abortion is murder. His response to “conservatives, by definition, support many evil things” is “oh yeah? Here’s an evil thing YOU support.” As if that would somehow reduce his own moral culpability in the slightest. It is truly frightening to gaze into the conservative mind and see how they think morality operates.
I didn’t necessarily have a specific point in mind.
I was just wondering if there were any conservatives who thought that Rush *did * have an underlying valid point which he damaged by his idiotic behavior. (and I assumed that any who did believe so would explain what they thought the valid point was)
That sounds reasonable but you haven’t shown that it works that way.
You haven’t shown that rates would go up because of contreceptive coverage. My impression was that insurance was going to cover it, period and the school/church wanted a special exemption to exclude what would normally be covered in the policy. Do you think the school gets a discount on a bulk rate insurance package for requesting a polciy written just for them? Maybe, but I’d need some evidence.
Do insurance companies consider contreception cheaper than unplanned pregnancies? You don’t have enough information to make the claim.
OK, I’m having trouble seeing where there’s any daylight between you and Ms. Fluke on this issue. Could you look through Ms. Fluke’s testimony I linked to on page 1 of this thread and quote the part you believe Rush had a valid point about?
