In your case I’ll concede that point. Gladly.
Well, shit, I need a job. Here we’ve unemployment issues, but i’d guess the rate over there is 0%?
It’s a hell of a good analogy, actually. But if you don’t like that one, here’s another.
It’s 1848, and John C. Calhoun (a charming, soft-spoken, articulate Unitarian) visits an abolitionist convention. He gives a knockout speech in which he says “Slavery is such a divisive issue. Surely, we can all come together, and find common ground. Instead of slandering honest, hard-working farmers, why can’t those who profess to oppose slavery join me in a new program: we can all support massive subsidies to cotton farmers, so that those who choose can afford to PAY workers instead of using slave labor? Why can we not all agree to spend more government money on farm technology? If there were better farm machinery, fewer slaves would be needed.”
Bottom line: REGARDLESS of the issue (abortion, slavery, death penalty, war, et al), it’s dishonest and just plain SILLY to tell your opponents, “Abandon your deeply held principles, and pour your energies into supporting some ‘pragmatic’ measures that may or may not advance your cause,” and pretend that’s some kind of reasonable compromise.
Unemployment is a necessary evil in a capitlistic, free economy. No pain, no gain. And it has nothing to do with immigration, although theoretically illegal immigrant labor will artificially raise the rate.
I’m not badmouthing capitalism. But if unemploment has nothing to do with immigration, what do you mean by saying a lower birthrate means less need for immigrants?
It’s a ticking time bomb known as social security, a ponzi scheme the dumbocrats cooked up.
I do not know any one who is “pro” abortion, They are for all life not just the unborn and a woman’s right to choose to defend her self if she cannot take care of a child to adult hood, care for it properly, etc. It can be even if not in all cases, a form of self defense. THe idea that a fertile egg is murder is plain silly, just as calling a pollenated blossom a fruit, a fertile bird (or chicken egg) a bird or chicken. Biology is what it is.
As for the RCC life didn’t seem to have much value when they burned people at the stake, or during the crusades when people were wiped out just because they did not follow the chuches beliefs. There is a huge difference in being pro-life and pro-birth. The pro-choice people want all the already born to have a decent life. If this were the case the RCC would change it’s attitude about human sexuality and inspire responsible parenthood. Perhaps if they took another look on what is really natural and what is not they may take a different view on birth control issues.
Could you explain this to me as though I were a foreigner who isn’t sure how the two are linked?
SS is at a critical mass. It will be bankrupt soon. Raising retirement age would only delay the inveitable another decade or two. We need **younger workers **to work longer, to pay in more, to… collect less… to continue the ponzi. You’d have to ask the dumbocrats for any further elucidation. I’m sure it will involve blaming christians, conservatives, or white people. Stay away from the punchbowl.
ND grad here- proud of both the University and the president throughout this. Jenkins is the right man in charge at this point in history.
I’m afraid you’ve confused me. You’ve suggested you’re in favour of a higher birthrate, but you’re not particuarly supportive of the ponzi, either. Which is it you’re in favour of - continuing or not continuing the ponzi?
I mean, either way, adding more people doesn’t solve the problem of a ponzi scheme. It just makes the problem bigger and shifts the problem over.
Is it only an opinion that a chicken is not a person?
Let’s put it this way, an embryo has no sentience or self-awareness and hence, can’t suffer. A chicken has more capacity to suffer than an embryo or a first trimester fetus. Capacity to suffer is all that matters to me. A woman can suffer, a zygote cannot. My concern is for the one who can suffer.
Hell is other people. Specifically, Carol Stream.
Ask someone from PETA.
So is that of the Right-to-Lifers. Which is why they want to bestow the capacity for suffering on as many organisms as possible, as quickly as possible.
[Moderator Hat ON]
caligulashorse, take it to the Pit, not here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Why? Do you think I give a shit what PETA thinks?
Well, people, including abolitionists, *did *compromise. The effort to prohibit slavery in states newly admitted to the Union was a compromise. Efforts to improve the treatment and living conditions of slaves were a compromise. Anyone who says “I’ll fight the battles I think I can win, rather than take personally satsifying but ultimately ineffective stands” is compromising.
Exactly. As noted earlier, Obama is not proposing compromise in the sense of satisfactory settlement of the issue. He is proposing compromise in the sense of actually legislating in areas of common ground on the issue while continuing the dialogue (hopefully with fair-minded words). Maybe compromise is not the right word for that, but it is his explicit proposal.
I was making a rhetorical point that someone wishing for “more abortions”, when they themselves are already born, is the epitome of hypocrisy.