[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]
You are wrong.[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
You made the claim. It’s incumbent on you.[/quote]
So you did realize that you were wrong when you said it and now don’t want to look bad by being the very one to point it out?
Okay, I’ll do it for you"
Social Security has cut the rate of poverty for the elderly by over half â?? from 29% in 1966 to 10% today. Not surprisingly, financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn has described Social Security as â??arguably the U.S. government’s greatest success.â?? Medicare has also been incredibly successful. It has doubled the number of the elderly covered by health insurance, so that 99% now enjoy that benefit. Without this form of â??socializedâ?? medicine, 15 million of our neediest citizens would be going without many vital medical services and many would have to choose between food and medicine. Older Americans are now living 20% longer, thanks in part to this effective program. These two programs have done more than anything else to relieve the pain and suffering of our elderly population.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
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”.
[/quote]
I see what you mean. You’ve now convinced me. Let’s just kill 'em.
I see what you mean. You’ve now convinced me. Let’s just kill 'em.
In fact, let’s just kill 'em all.
I convinced you to kill them? Way to miss my point by a mile Mr. Push! The point was that if you killed them indirectly by neglect, no court of law will hold you responsible. Do you understand why you aren’t responsible for that?
Social Security has cut the rate of poverty for the elderly by over half Ã??Ã?¢?? from 29% in 1966 to 10% today. Not surprisingly, financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn has described Social Security as Ã??Ã?¢??arguably the U.S. government’s greatest success.Ã??Ã?¢?? Medicare has also been incredibly successful. It has doubled the number of the elderly covered by health insurance, so that 99% now enjoy that benefit. Without this form of Ã??Ã?¢??socializedÃ??Ã?¢?? medicine, 15 million of our neediest citizens would be going without many vital medical services and many would have to choose between food and medicine. Older Americans are now living 20% longer, thanks in part to this effective program. These two programs have done more than anything else to relieve the pain and suffering of our elderly population.
[/quote]
BTW, why do care about the elderly who have lived a full life and are relatively close to dying while simultaneously advocating dumping innocent babies into incinerators ala the nasty European Joooos?
(Do not infer that I don’t care for the elderly, biology major)[/quote]
You’re enjoying jumping around the main point I keep bringing up by making it seem that what I’m saying is that I care when some people die, but not others.
I can see where your little brain is getting confuzzled, but caring about someone dying isn’t the topic. The point is, who should be held responsible for them dying?
I’m not saying that you should be held responsible for a grandparent’s death or a child that you decided you were unfit to care for, I’m merely pointing out that if you aren’t responsible for that, it’s not consistent to say a mother has to be responsible for a less developed child.
Even with the government programs, the young and old are suffering and dying, albeit in lesser numbers than before and family neglect is still playing a part in these cases without penalty.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
In fact, being Pro-life is like slavery. All those slaves owners were forcing women to have child because they needed new slaves. They had no respect for women’s rights just like all of you.[/quote]
I respect the men and women who were murdered in the developmental stage of their already existing life. See, it’s you who hates women. You need them to be consequence-less sexual objects. You hate their nature. You hate that human life is tied to your want for casual orgasm. You’ll even support the death of women before they ever had the opportunity to choose for themselves. You’ll watch peoples and cultures grow old and fade away, and still insist you’re on the side of ‘progress.’ You’re a Darwinian dead end, ironically. [/quote]This is EXACTLY right. Sloth ol buddy you may never know how painful it is for me that we cannot commune in Christ, but you are still one of the clearest (and so many times biblical) thinking individuals I have ever met. No sincerer words have ever emerged from the mind of man than what I just said.
You have just encapsulated in a few sentences, not only the essence of the murderous abortionist mindset, but THE carnal bondage that is devouring the western world and especially this country to death. God’s beautiful and glorious life giving gift of intimate marital love, designed to portray Christ’s love for His Church, reduced on one hand to degenerate hedonistic recreation and on the other elevated to the status of thoroughgoing fleshly self worshiping idolatry.
I do know we agree here regardless of our presently insurmountable theological differences.
I’m not saying that you should be held responsible for a grandparent’s death or a child that you decided you were unfit to care for, I’m merely pointing out that if you aren’t responsible for that, it’s not consistent to say a mother has to be responsible for a less developed child.
[/quote]
A mother has a natural and biological duty. The child is in her womb, due to no actions of it’s own. Her actions aren’t even JUST neglectful. They directly kill the human life, in the case of abortion. Period. The comparison of abortion with entitlement programs is mind-boggling.
I’m not saying that you should be held responsible for a grandparent’s death or a child that you decided you were unfit to care for, I’m merely pointing out that if you aren’t responsible for that, it’s not consistent to say a mother has to be responsible for a less developed child.
[/quote]
A mother has a natural and biological duty. The child is in her womb, due to no actions of it’s own. Her actions aren’t even JUST neglectful. They directly kill the human life, in the case of abortion. Period. The comparison of abortion with entitlement programs is mind-boggling.
[/quote]
There was no “comparison of abortion with entitlement programs”. The fact that you took it that way is, well, mind-boggling.
The point was that most people who get abortions are poor, and, see, babies require lots of money… money that poor people dont have!
So what doesn’t make sense, see, is the way your clan loves to rally about how the child must be born, another mouth must be around to feed… but you’ll be damned if you give half a shit about the kid AFTER its born.
By the way, hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered in Americas military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan…
So what doesn’t make sense, see, is the way your clan loves to rally about how the child must be born, another mouth must be around to feed… but you’ll be damned if you give half a shit about the kid AFTER its born.[/quote]
I’m a devout Christian, we give more “of a shit” than your clan about feeding the hungry and poor. And we don’t determine they’d be better off dead, on their behalf, like your clan. Even the poor have hope to find joy within a meager existence. Even the poor can often make their condition liveable and acceptable in intact homes, in a nation where marriage is among the highest, if not the highest, virtue for adults of the opposite sex. Your clan has confounded that, too.
If a cop shoots a shooting suspect in actual defense of himself or the public, the stray bullet which strikes a bystander is the result of the suspect’s actions.
The guilt of lives lost in a place of warring tyrannical factions lies with the would be tyrants.
Your comparison makes evil self defense and defense of others. Your comparison even places the blame of lives lost in a fight of native countrymen against a dictator on the native countrymen. Even if it the rebellion’s policy to not target non-combatants deliberately.
You’re now arguing for subjugation to tyranny in order to defend the DELIBERATE taking of an innocent human life.
What’s next? If we don’t agree to a law that would force us to share our shelter with homeless passerby’s we must support abortion? Sorry folks, I don’t fall for the “hey look, what’s that over there” tactic. Abortion.
Capp, do you have a right to life as an individual?
There was no “comparison of abortion with entitlement programs”. [/quote]
Oh, I guess it’s my imagination that entitlement programs were brought into the discussion…No, wait.
[/quote]
Brought into the discussion? Yes.
Brought into the discussion TO COMPARE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS TO ABORTION? No.
Brought into the discussion to illuminate the different attitudes anti-abortionists have towards children before they’re born and after they’re born? YES.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s next? If we don’t agree to a law that would force us to share our shelter with homeless passerby’s we must support abortion? Sorry folks, I don’t fall for the “hey look, what’s that over there” tactic. Abortion.
Capp, do you have a right to life as an individual?[/quote]
So what doesn’t make sense, see, is the way your clan loves to rally about how the child must be born, another mouth must be around to feed… but you’ll be damned if you give half a shit about the kid AFTER its born.[/quote]
I’m a devout Christian, we give more “of a shit” than your clan about feeding the hungry and poor. And we don’t determine they’d be better off dead, on their behalf, like your clan. Even the poor have hope to find joy within a meager existence. Even the poor can often make their condition liveable and acceptable in intact homes, in a nation where marriage is among the highest, if not the highest, virtue for adults of the opposite sex. Your clan has confounded that, too.
If a cop shoots a shooting suspect in actual defense of himself or the public, the stray bullet which strikes a bystander is the result of the suspect’s actions.
The guilt of lives lost in a place of warring tyrannical factions lies with the would be tyrants.
Your comparison makes evil self defense and defense of others. Your comparison even places the blame of lives lost in a fight of native countrymen against a dictator on the native countrymen. Even if it the rebellion’s policy to not target non-combatants deliberately.
You’re now arguing for subjugation to tyranny in order to defend the DELIBERATE taking of an innocent human life.[/quote]
LOL Good troll, man. I almost got upset for a second there.
[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]
You are wrong.[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
You made the claim. It’s incumbent on you.[/quote]
Actually, you’re the one sitting here telling us that it should go back to the private sector. If we moved away from it, it can’t have been all that good in the first place. Still on you.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
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]
[/quote]
Busy with schoolwork, but that was a bad answer for you. You’re the same individual life, in all developmental stages. I’m not making that up.
You’re angry because abortion is murder. And, because it contradicts a claim to humanity having a right to life. I’d be frazzled trying to defend it, too. Anatomy and Phys. for awhile, sorry so short.
There was no “comparison of abortion with entitlement programs”. [/quote]
Oh, I guess it’s my imagination that entitlement programs were brought into the discussion…No, wait.
[/quote]
Brought into the discussion? Yes.
Brought into the discussion TO COMPARE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS TO ABORTION? No.
Brought into the discussion to illuminate the different attitudes anti-abortionists have towards children before they’re born and after they’re born? YES.
Now stop being stupid. [/quote]
So wait, I’m being stupid for saying what you just admitted…oh. We’ll talk more about this when I have time.