[quote]Next you will want to kill your parents because they don’t do anything but use societies’ resources after a certain age. How long before you would like that to happen?
[/quote]
If you paid attention, you’d realize that you’re switching sides here. I’m actually for paying for the elderly; it’s your camp that wants to take that away. I’m for paying for government charities; once again, it’s the anti-abortion group that generally stands against these programs that you’re now suddenly advocating in light of my argument. I also personally take responsibility for all of my family, but you know as well as I do that I’m not required to by law and wouldn’t be punished if my grandparent died because I didn’t attend to them.
Here’s the sad truth, which everyone arguing against pro-choice already knows: you cannot force someone to be a good parent. They can make life but they may not take care of it. They might choose to release all rights to it. Simply creating it doesn’t mean that you’re going to take care of it. We don’t hold the creator responsible if they choose to give up their rights to their creation.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I think its funny that the same people who demand that a poor person have a baby are the first to pitch a fit when that poor person has to get (or get more) government assistance to pay for that baby. [/quote]
It doesn’t nor shouldn’t come from the government. It should, and used to, come from the private sector.
It’s not the assisting that precipitates the fit pitching; it’s the source of the assistance. One source derives its resources benignly and voluntarily. The other gets its wealth at the point of the sword.[/quote]
Many more starved when it came from the private sector.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And of the two systems of assistance, one has proven overwhelmingly ineffective despite the most extravagant expenditures of resources in the history of mankind so please forgive the fit pitchers when they utter the Roberto Duran line, “No mas,” and ask to return to the old fashioned EFFECTIVE way.[/quote]
The old-fashioned, “effective” way was supplemented with the government programs because people were starving and dying on it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And of the two systems of assistance, one has proven overwhelmingly ineffective despite the most extravagant expenditures of resources in the history of mankind so please forgive the fit pitchers when they utter the Roberto Duran line, “No mas,” and ask to return to the old fashioned EFFECTIVE way.[/quote]
Ok. So find a few likeminded people, get some cash together, find someone on government assistance, and convince them to take the money from you instead of the government.
Think it’ll happen?
You’re probably right that in the past charities were much better funded - but that was also before “Every man for himself” and “Everybody can make it, so if you fail its not MY fucking problem, why should I give you anything?” became acceptable philosophies ---- philosophies you seem to encourage, actually.[/quote]
Charities are still well-funded and extremely active. Just look up the charity section of any fortune 500 company to reassure yourself that private charity is thriving.
Uh oh! Guess what time it is? It’s Wikipedia time! For those who skipped school and decided to get their edumacation from bored people online: Urbanization - Wikipedia
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This country you stayed in was not one of those that was considered the most progressed on earth in terms of urbanization, my friend. I don’t even know which one you stayed in, but I know that much was true.[/quote]
This outback western hick LOVES the improper use of the words “progressed” and “urbanization” in this post ^.[/quote]
If I see one of you compare opposition to entitlement programs to the biological and naturally ordered relationship of offspring to mother again, I’ll chalk it up to a mental disorder. Stop flinging crap, hoping something will stick to the wall. Abortion is the deliberate taking of a innocent individual human life, period. Is anyone home?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And of the two systems of assistance, one has proven overwhelmingly ineffective despite the most extravagant expenditures of resources in the history of mankind so please forgive the fit pitchers when they utter the Roberto Duran line, “No mas,” and ask to return to the old fashioned EFFECTIVE way.[/quote]
The old-fashioned, “effective” way was supplemented with the government programs because people were starving and dying on it. [/quote]
Ahhh, so a woman has no obligation to her own offspring in the womb, but we have a duty to Ironcross’ grandma. Busted.
Uh oh! Guess what time it is? It’s Wikipedia time! For those who skipped school and decided to get their edumacation from bored people online: Urbanization - Wikipedia
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This country you stayed in was not one of those that was considered the most progressed on earth in terms of urbanization, my friend. I don’t even know which one you stayed in, but I know that much was true.[/quote]
This outback western hick LOVES the improper use of the words “progressed” and “urbanization” in this post ^.[/quote]
[/quote]
Err, he is objecting to urbanization as progress. Not urbanization as a term…
What country are you from IC? How old are you? Are you a native speaker? What is your level of education you are trying to reach? I ask because this might explain your ineptitude.
And please try and find me someone who is pro-life AND they want to take away the rights of the elderly. The weakest portions of societies will loose their rights before a society collapses. With newborns losing their rights, the next step will be the senior citizens.
You can force people to be responsible. That can and should be done! How many babies can a woman and man create before they actually realize the acts/wrongs they are doing? Can you think of why there are never any stories about couples who just have sex and create lots of babies and give each one up for adoption? Why would those stories never exist?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
If you paid attention, you’d realize that you’re switching sides here. I’m actually for paying for the elderly; it’s your camp that wants to take that away. I’m for paying for government charities; once again, it’s the anti-abortion group that generally stands against these programs that you’re now suddenly advocating in light of my argument. I also personally take responsibility for all of my family, but you know as well as I do that I’m not required to by law and wouldn’t be punished if my grandparent died because I didn’t attend to them.
Here’s the sad truth, which everyone arguing against pro-choice already knows: you cannot force someone to be a good parent. They can make life but they may not take care of it. They might choose to release all rights to it. Simply creating it doesn’t mean that you’re going to take care of it. We don’t hold the creator responsible if they choose to give up their rights to their creation.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And of the two systems of assistance, one has proven overwhelmingly ineffective despite the most extravagant expenditures of resources in the history of mankind so please forgive the fit pitchers when they utter the Roberto Duran line, “No mas,” and ask to return to the old fashioned EFFECTIVE way.[/quote]
The old-fashioned, “effective” way was supplemented with the government programs because people were starving and dying on it. [/quote]
Ahhh, so a woman has no obligation to her own offspring in the womb, but we have a duty to Ironcross’ grandma. Busted.[/quote]
No, you don’t have a moral duty to government programs. I wish you did. I wish that every parent had a responsibility to their kids and every kid a responsibility to their dying parents, but that’s only how it works in G-rated movies. However, I understand that’s my idealism; it’s not reality, as you’d be the first to point out. Expecting that every person who makes a kid is going to take care of it at all stages of development is your idealism.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I think its funny that the same people who demand that a poor person have a baby are the first to pitch a fit when that poor person has to get (or get more) government assistance to pay for that baby. [/quote]
It doesn’t nor shouldn’t come from the government. It should, and used to, come from the private sector.
It’s not the assisting that precipitates the fit pitching; it’s the source of the assistance. One source derives its resources benignly and voluntarily. The other gets its wealth at the point of the sword.[/quote]
Many more starved when it came from the private sector.[/quote]
Uh oh! Guess what time it is? It’s Wikipedia time! For those who skipped school and decided to get their edumacation from bored people online: Urbanization - Wikipedia
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This country you stayed in was not one of those that was considered the most progressed on earth in terms of urbanization, my friend. I don’t even know which one you stayed in, but I know that much was true.[/quote]
This outback western hick LOVES the improper use of the words “progressed” and “urbanization” in this post ^.[/quote]
[/quote]
Err, he is objecting to urbanization as progress. Not urbanization as a term…
[/quote]
He can argue about whether or not urbanization is progress all he likes, but the fact is that it’s a predictable progression of changes, happening at different rates all over the world, which doesn’t appear to have one example of a permanent reversal. Therefore, it would be good to read up on what changes you can expect from it. The word “progress” is used in a utilitarian sense here, not moral, in terms of a predictable series of changes.
It’s not at all uncommon for a person to have multiple children they give up for adoption. Many are also left at hospitals and signed into the foster-care system. It’s not talked about because it’s “not your problem”.
There are also plenty of people who aren’t taking care of their grandparents.
However, I have the impression you have no idea what I mean by the word “right” in this argument. So let’s start there. What do you consider to be the “rights” of the elderly that have to be respected by those related to them who can care for them?
Before I answer your question about what country I’m from, why don’t you go ahead and tell me which country you were referring to as amazingly progressive for outlawing abortion? Do you still live there?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What country are you from IC? How old are you? Are you a native speaker? What is your level of education you are trying to reach? I ask because this might explain your ineptitude.
And please try and find me someone who is pro-life AND they want to take away the rights of the elderly. The weakest portions of societies will loose their rights before a society collapses. With newborns losing their rights, the next step will be the senior citizens.
You can force people to be responsible. That can and should be done! How many babies can a woman and man create before they actually realize the acts/wrongs they are doing? Can you think of why there are never any stories about couples who just have sex and create lots of babies and give each one up for adoption? Why would those stories never exist?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
If you paid attention, you’d realize that you’re switching sides here. I’m actually for paying for the elderly; it’s your camp that wants to take that away. I’m for paying for government charities; once again, it’s the anti-abortion group that generally stands against these programs that you’re now suddenly advocating in light of my argument. I also personally take responsibility for all of my family, but you know as well as I do that I’m not required to by law and wouldn’t be punished if my grandparent died because I didn’t attend to them.
Here’s the sad truth, which everyone arguing against pro-choice already knows: you cannot force someone to be a good parent. They can make life but they may not take care of it. They might choose to release all rights to it. Simply creating it doesn’t mean that you’re going to take care of it. We don’t hold the creator responsible if they choose to give up their rights to their creation.[/quote]
[/quote]
