This is brilliant. I wish I knew how to post the “people clapping” .gif
In order:
No. But that doesn’t matter. Anything that can’t go on forever, won’t.
Mostly China and a LOT. The interest payments alone can pay for China’s entire annual military budget and that is going to grow.
Yes. It limits the scope of public works, military expenditure, and the ability to absorb economic shock.
No idea, would rather not find out.
No, you aren’t. It just depresses me.
I don’t suppose I can get you see the actual point I am making without side tracking you on the nouns of the analogy, while I was attempting to focus on the verbal component.
In essence you would have to sell me on paying more to the government, to my detriment. And you would have to show me that you can pay more, still live as you wish, while providing more for the benefit of others.
Who benifits from us paying more? Why would it be morally imparative to pay morr taxes? And if you believe strongly in it why don’t you just pay more of your own freewill?
I niether can nor need too.
As has been stated previously:
Oh they are very similar, one takes away what a person is, the other takes everthing one could ever be without replacement. Whether or not you justify the death of a human, at what ever point you take it at minimal, you take away what that life would uniquely be and that it could never be replaced. Another human can be born, but it will never be the human you took, that life is gone forever. Don’t really see how you don’t see that. And that that fact alone is morally reprehensible at its core. If anything should matter, that should.
How does raping me with taxes solve this, if in fact is the main issue?
Should we not plug the holes and go after those who did the illegal stuff?
And this potential unique life should take precedence over the actual unique life of a person, ie the mother?
This does not strike me as a particularly compelling argument. Unique genotypes are lost by the millions every year via spontaneous abortions.
And none of this remotely addresses the fundamental fact of competing rights in the context of abortion, a consideration wholly absent in the context of slavery.
That’s an appalling, misleading and inappropriate way to characterize taxation.
You can and you do. Slavery was a moral issue even to the ancient Greeks.
How the hell is something that is actually alive a ‘potential life’?
You’re a doctor, you know better than this. And I know that you know better than this.
This is not a murky area of science, it has been defined.
You have a right to support abortion, but you don’t have a right to redefine facts so that they are conveniently serving your pov. You’re not a stupid person.
I had a feeling this analogy would not workout.
The point is are you willing to ask something of someone, you are not wiling to do first?
What’s that say in your faith in the success of that action?
Can you explain how you think your taxes should be dramatically lower but argue that we should have had 2.5 million more babies in 2005-2008?
Many religious people don’t want to help pay for birth control, want every baby born, and then don’t want tax dollars spent on these kids. By nature all of these children are unwanted. Many of them would be born into poverty sometimes by young unemployed women. Fighting against birth control and contraceptive use which could limit these doesn’t make a lot of sense. Oh yeah something something Bible verse says we shouldn’t!
One would think the pro life crowd would be banging the gong of increasing the amount of services available for women and children. Yet the biblical crowd is often also the small government crowd (except when it comes to forcing women to do something or fighting wars) and isn’t doing this. Many Bible Belt states are the lowest spending on health care and education. Of course they are also sucking the most federal dollars but hey that’s conservative Republicans for you right?
That’s why I like the term pro birth. They want every kid born but once they are out fuck them I’m not getting “raped” to pay for them.
Yes, depending on what that something is.
Since God is the one who creates life there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy.
And isn’t there a difference between human and human being?
Jesus loves all the little children so he should pay for them instead of me being raped by tax dollars says Catholic person.
I’ll let Jesus respond: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
I would assume you also believe, then, that God also takes life. Is he the reason children die of cancer? Is treating that cancer against His will then too?
Poorly phrased on my part. Should have said ‘potential person.’
Yes, human qua genotype has been defined. On the other hand, human qua person is subject to interpretation and debate. And the issue of personhood is crucial to this topic.