So which is it? I personally cannot in good conscience FORCE a poor, uneducated human being to keep her kid and then tell her that I’m going to let her and the kid starve.
Wow, what a stretch Hairy. I know it takes a lot of contortions for normally logical and rational people to justify their support for abortion, but you should put in for a medal for that one.
It takes one cold hearted SOB to say the answer to the entitlement problems is to kill the kids so they won’t be a problem.
Here’s the thing: This conservative feels that we should help those who truly cannot help themselves. That, for me, includes children. I think there are a lot of things we can do differently to still help those children without providing them with cradle-to-grave entitlements.
Abortion, clearly, isn’t the solution.
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Right Bike. And the point is, I am against those entitlements. And I could not be against those entitlements if I were also against abortion. Conscience dictates a choice between one or the other: We either allow the poor to manage their own population, or we agree to feed them.
I, personally, would rather let them manage their stuff and let me be.
Hairy Polemic - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Rob,
I know it takes a lot of contortions for normally logical and rational people to…
Please point out where my premise fails to bridge to conclusion next time you attack my logic.
All I see is you attacking the premise itself:
It takes one cold hearted SOB to say the answer to the entitlement problems is to kill the kids so they won’t be a problem.
With an appeal to emotion no less! I thought only liberals did that…
Hairy Polemic - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Yes, you can oppose both entitlements and abortion. Reality is that even prior to the Great Society and LBJ’s “War on the Poor,” it was really quite rare for people to go hungry. Starvation really hasn’t been much of an issue in our country for centuries except for isolated instances like Donner Pass and the first few years at Jamestown and Plimoth.
And yes, if you’d rather kill a child than feed him, it’s entirely appropriate to call you a heartless bastard. Pardon my French, but it fits.
Bike Bubba - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Please point out where my premise fails to bridge to conclusion next time you attack my logic.
Sorry, perhaps a bit more snarky than I intended, butI thought I did. In order to defend your support for abortion you have to find excuses like..."Let’s kill the kids so they don’t become entitlement problems.”
Ignoring that there are plenty of things we can do to fix the entitlement problems we face without needing to murder unborn children.
And as for appealing to emotion, if you find my arguments to be inconvenient in that regard perhaps it is a commentary on the crass nature of your position (kill kids rather than feed them?) rather than the illogical nature of my points.
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Answer me this: Why do you think the solution is to kill a child before he/she has really has a chance to live because that child might end up with a life of poverty?
You do know that some of those murder kids might manage to life themselves out of poverty and lead fulfilling lives. Why do you think that you should get to decide if a child lives or dies? Why do you think that a mother should get that decision?
I know, I know. How dare anyone ask you to debate the morality of an issue given that we all have different morals and thus its impossible to define right and wrong, but do try to at least think about the question for once.
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
For someone who claims to be against collectivist thinking, Hairy, you sure don’t seem to mind putting the well-being of the collective above the right of the individual children to live.
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
For someone who claims to be against collectivist thinking, Hairy, you sure don’t seem to mind putting the well-being of the collective above the right of the individual children to live.
Last I checked, this started with a “taxes funding abortion” issue. Taxes fund collective goods, so obviously I would frame my pro-abortion funding argument in a collective context.
Answer me this: Why do you think the solution is to kill a child before he/she has really has a chance to live because that child might end up with a life of poverty?
I think the mother is far closer to the situation than society to decide the likelihood of that child ending up with a life of poverty. If she decides that that will be the case, then we must accept that finding of fact and let her do what she thinks is right.
Why do you think that you should get to decide if a child lives or dies?
I shouldn’t.
Why do you think that a mother should get that decision?
Because she is in a better position to decide that child’s future than any of us.
How dare anyone ask you to debate the morality of an issue given that we all have different morals and thus its impossible to define right and wrong, but do try to at least think about the question for once.
Debating morality is a moot point. A system of government that provides the MOST liberty to its citizens is one that DOES NOT legislate morality because doing so would be FORCING one sect’s values on another.
If you are against abortion then, well and good, don’t have one. If you are against funding abortion, I will argue that you are unreasonable because your need to live in a safe and prosperous society should, as a matter of self-preservation, override your desire to live in a society that bans abortions.
Hairy Polemic - 01:03pm on 03/31/2008
If debating morality is a moot point, why are the founding documents full of intrinsically moral arguments?
Please, Hairy; you’re more or less arguing Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest good for the greatest number,” and that argument, historically speaking, leads to totalitarianism.
Get back with Blackstone and true law; that based on morals. Those who advocate funding for Planned Parenthood more or less tell me that I’ve got to pay for some barbarian to rip a child limb from limb--a crime that if committed anywhere else would lead to life in prison or the death penalty.
Bike Bubba - 01:03pm on 03/31/2008
I think the mother is far closer to the situation than society to decide the likelihood of that child ending up with a life of poverty. If she decides that that will be the case, then we must accept that finding of fact and let her do what she thinks is right.
Finding of fact? Really? You’re going to toss that out there and pretend like it makes sense?
What you’re talking about is giving someone the power to murder their child on nothing more than a whim, and then saying that we have to accept it.
What utter nonsense.
If you are against funding abortion, I will argue that you are unreasonable because your need to live in a safe and prosperous society should, as a matter of self-preservation, override your desire to live in a society that bans abortions.
Right. Because society was awful before we subsidized infanticide.
Again, free societies emphasize the rights of the individual. You are arguing that we trump the right of individual children to live - the most basic of all rights - for the greater good.
I’d point out that entitlements for children are not the problem in America. Its entitlements for the elderly - most of whom don’t need them - that are killing us. Our problem is with Social Security and Medicare, not WIC and TANF (though there’s plenty of fat to be cut in programs like that as well).
We can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder. You won’t admit this because you need the entitlements argument to justify your support for said murder.
Wow, what a stretch Hairy. I know it takes a lot of contortions for normally logical and rational people to justify their support for abortion, but you should put in for a medal for that one.
It takes one cold hearted SOB to say the answer to the entitlement problems is to kill the kids so they won’t be a problem.
Here’s the thing: This conservative feels that we should help those who truly cannot help themselves. That, for me, includes children. I think there are a lot of things we can do differently to still help those children without providing them with cradle-to-grave entitlements.
Abortion, clearly, isn’t the solution.
Right Bike. And the point is, I am against those entitlements. And I could not be against those entitlements if I were also against abortion. Conscience dictates a choice between one or the other: We either allow the poor to manage their own population, or we agree to feed them.
I, personally, would rather let them manage their stuff and let me be.
Rob,
Please point out where my premise fails to bridge to conclusion next time you attack my logic.
All I see is you attacking the premise itself:
With an appeal to emotion no less! I thought only liberals did that…
Yes, you can oppose both entitlements and abortion. Reality is that even prior to the Great Society and LBJ’s “War on the Poor,” it was really quite rare for people to go hungry. Starvation really hasn’t been much of an issue in our country for centuries except for isolated instances like Donner Pass and the first few years at Jamestown and Plimoth.
And yes, if you’d rather kill a child than feed him, it’s entirely appropriate to call you a heartless bastard. Pardon my French, but it fits.
Sorry, perhaps a bit more snarky than I intended, butI thought I did. In order to defend your support for abortion you have to find excuses like..."Let’s kill the kids so they don’t become entitlement problems.”
Ignoring that there are plenty of things we can do to fix the entitlement problems we face without needing to murder unborn children.
And as for appealing to emotion, if you find my arguments to be inconvenient in that regard perhaps it is a commentary on the crass nature of your position (kill kids rather than feed them?) rather than the illogical nature of my points.
Answer me this: Why do you think the solution is to kill a child before he/she has really has a chance to live because that child might end up with a life of poverty?
You do know that some of those murder kids might manage to life themselves out of poverty and lead fulfilling lives. Why do you think that you should get to decide if a child lives or dies? Why do you think that a mother should get that decision?
I know, I know. How dare anyone ask you to debate the morality of an issue given that we all have different morals and thus its impossible to define right and wrong, but do try to at least think about the question for once.
For someone who claims to be against collectivist thinking, Hairy, you sure don’t seem to mind putting the well-being of the collective above the right of the individual children to live.
Last I checked, this started with a “taxes funding abortion” issue. Taxes fund collective goods, so obviously I would frame my pro-abortion funding argument in a collective context.
I think the mother is far closer to the situation than society to decide the likelihood of that child ending up with a life of poverty. If she decides that that will be the case, then we must accept that finding of fact and let her do what she thinks is right.
I shouldn’t.
Because she is in a better position to decide that child’s future than any of us.
Debating morality is a moot point. A system of government that provides the MOST liberty to its citizens is one that DOES NOT legislate morality because doing so would be FORCING one sect’s values on another.
If you are against abortion then, well and good, don’t have one. If you are against funding abortion, I will argue that you are unreasonable because your need to live in a safe and prosperous society should, as a matter of self-preservation, override your desire to live in a society that bans abortions.
If debating morality is a moot point, why are the founding documents full of intrinsically moral arguments?
Please, Hairy; you’re more or less arguing Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest good for the greatest number,” and that argument, historically speaking, leads to totalitarianism.
Get back with Blackstone and true law; that based on morals. Those who advocate funding for Planned Parenthood more or less tell me that I’ve got to pay for some barbarian to rip a child limb from limb--a crime that if committed anywhere else would lead to life in prison or the death penalty.
Finding of fact? Really? You’re going to toss that out there and pretend like it makes sense?
What you’re talking about is giving someone the power to murder their child on nothing more than a whim, and then saying that we have to accept it.
What utter nonsense.
Right. Because society was awful before we subsidized infanticide.
Again, free societies emphasize the rights of the individual. You are arguing that we trump the right of individual children to live - the most basic of all rights - for the greater good.
I’d point out that entitlements for children are not the problem in America. Its entitlements for the elderly - most of whom don’t need them - that are killing us. Our problem is with Social Security and Medicare, not WIC and TANF (though there’s plenty of fat to be cut in programs like that as well).
We can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder. You won’t admit this because you need the entitlements argument to justify your support for said murder.