I usually only lie to spare feelings or in furtherance of a good story. Bricker misleads people all the time. Look at any voter ID threads. Well, don’t, because they are like 9000 pages long, and no one deserves that.
I’m hardly brilliant. I just seem that way because you’re confused.
Hold up. Think hard about this:
If more than one motivation can exist for the same action, then is it possible for the action to sometimes be good, and sometimes be bad?
Shooting a 15 year old holding a knife is a good action if you think he’s going to kill you. And a bad action if you think he’s about to return it to the kitchen.
So, your assertion that as long as a good motivation exists it is impossible for there to be a bad motivation, is spectacularly silly. Your thinking is fuzzy and muddled, and you need to step back, and examine it.
I offered those links as proof of an argument against abortion that is not tied to religion. They needn’t be strong enough to convince you or me of their position, only that it is a sound and reasonable position. The last link, the YouTube link shows famed atheist Christopher Hitchens presenting on of the philosophical underpinnings. Again, an argument needn’t convince me or you to adopt that position in order to be valid.
Agreed.
Again, I agree with this. But there have been posters in this thread unable to accept and/or live by the distinction you make.
I’m still a bit confused. But I feel the need to say that I don’t think any religionist would dismiss a position out of hand simply because it had no foundation or support in religion. But that may not be what you mean at all.
One thing that I think might be confusing is that some posters have tried to use Bricker, the individual, as proxy for society at large. It appears, that some think that if they can show that his motivation is not purely secular that a purely secular position against abortion does not exist. His link to non-Christian and Atheist sites that are opposed to abortion should have put a stop to that point of attack, but no such luck.
Very possibly, yes. A poster’s poor logic can indeed have that effect on me.
Yeesh. You’re looking at onemotivation, i.e., the potential shooter’s intent to stay alive. If you were referring to the motivations of Knife Carrier A (wanting to kill you) or Knife Carrier B (returning knife to kitchen), those are two completely different and completely separate motivations tied to two completely different actions. The problem you present is only a problem because the person with the gun has to guess the knife-carrier’s motivation. Either way, horrible analogy.
Now, I we do agree that more than one motivation can exist for the same action, or position. But no one, other than possibly you, seems to have a problem with that concept. You’re the one seemingly unable to accept that opposition to abortion can be either religious or completely secular. Even though links have been provided to atheist groups who oppose abortion. You then seem to want to use Bricker as proxy for society at large. As I responded to you a week ago, the title of this thread is not “Bricker’s Opposition to Abortion”. You attempt to create that straw giant and attempt to slay it. So, I called you on your straw-manning and point out your failure in even trying to slay it. No extra charge.
I’m curious what a “workable” abortion ban would be like. Something like Ireland’s, where women with unwanted pregnancies just head to the U.K.?
The same curiosity often prompts me to ask people advocating a ban what kind of penalties they had in mind. How much time did bootleggers get during Prohibition?
How are you so dense? Who do you think enacted § 46.2-725? And did you not read my cites? The state does NOT collect money for the entities. It sells tags and gives the entities IT decides on what money IT decided to give from said sale.
Your tax refund question is not equatable at all and nice try to move the goal posts yet again. Why did you not address all the rest of the stuff in that post that you were in the WRONG about? You are a disingenuous idiot and I’m not going to waste any more time with you. You’re wrong and everyone knows it, including, I suspect, you.
I’m assuming it’s on the basis that the state legislature feels free to amend the statue to redirect/add restrictions to the funding on an organization by organization basis. Surely a ‘fixed scheme’ with individual, named exceptions isn’t exactly a ‘fixed scheme’.
Could the state adding on (enforceable, I assume) restrictions on how the money can be spent if it never owned the money? Could the state add on a ‘Bricker is not allowed to spend his tax refund on booze’ amendment?
It certainly seems to me that it changes the situation from ‘neutrally passing along a portion of the plate fees’ to ‘we’ll give you a grant, unless we don’t like you’.
Well, there’s a middle ground - “we’ll give you a grant, but we’ll be dicks about it.”
Out of curiosity, are donations to Planned Parenthood tax-deductible? If so, are they still tax-deductible if you gave the money to PP for the express purpose of paying for abortions?
This is a tangent, of course, but I’ve given up on getting further discussion from Bricker about post 1129 or from magellan01 about… pretty much anything.
Care to explain WHY my tax refund question is not relevant? It’s precisely the same: state collects money from me that it is obligated to return to me.
So far as I know, the abortion restriction is sui generis – no other organization that has requested a license plate has had their request modified in any way by the legislature.
The state refuses to collect the money in the first place unless the restriction is accepted.
It may change it – but it doesn’t make it state money.
How many of those sites call for easy access to free birth control? Since they have no religious reason, they are all pro-birth control. Right?
Funny YouTube video - gynotician:
Please. You’re delving into another definition-driven argument, even after you recognized that Virginia isn’t being even-handed on the issue. Do you think it really matters if it can be called “state money” or not?
If Delegate Gilbert’s amendment directing the money from the plates to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund had passed would Planned Parenthood have been able to have someone arrested and charged with theft? Could Planned Parenthood/plate buyers have been able to successfully sue the government to get the funds?
Could Planned Parenthood go to court now and get the ‘no using these funds for abortion’ amendment added by Gov. McDonnell overturned?
It seems to me that somewhere between the money belonging to the plate purchasers, and belonging to Planned Parenthood that the state gained the power to decide who gets the money and how it can be spent. And if that power doesn’t make it ‘state money’ I’m curious what would.
What matters is the acknowledgment of error on the point. If you are saying, “All right, it’s not ‘state money,’ but it’s just as bad, because A, B, and C,” that’s fine. You appear to wish to have the conversation about A, B, and C while skipping the acknowledgement, as though your skin will burn if you have to admit any error at all, even one from your side rather than you personally.