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.
No, I admit that we can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder if “solving the entitlements problem” meant nothing more than cutting the spending.
You are equivocating two arguments:(1) Being against entitlements while contributing to the situation that calls for them is contradictiory. (2) Funding abortion would fix the entitlements problem. I argued the former, not the latter.
Hairy Polemic - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Harry. Taxpayer money is approved for all sorts of contraceptives including operations in hospitals. I approve these efforts to prevent pregnancy. I think that most people are intelligent enough to make that decision. They should also know that killing babies is immoral and should not be allowed nor taxpayer funded. The “poor” ploy does not float. I saw these “poor” people while teaching. They had $150 hair dos, $200 shoes, lied about their free lunch applications, sold drugs, prostituted themselves and corrupted as many young children as they could.
Chief RZ - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
You are equivocating two arguments:(1) Being against entitlements while contributing to the situation that calls for them is contradictiory. (2) Funding abortion would fix the entitlements problem.
Ok, fair enough, but you’re argument is still bogus for two big reasons:
1) Not all abortions happen because of financial reasons. I’d argue that most abortions happen not because the mother can’t care for the child, but because the mother doesn’t want to. Not every abortion results in the murder of a child that would have been a burden to the entitlements system.
2) There are other options to cutting down on unwanted pregnancies too without resorting to killing the children.
I know you have no moral compunctions about abortion - which is troubling to me in and of itself - but surely you should be able to admit that at-will abortion and entitlement problems are not an either/or proposition.
You essentially want to call people like me hypocrites because we feel entitlements should be limited but also feel that abortion is wrong.
Clearly, you’re the one who is wrong here.
Rob - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
but surely you should be able to admit that at-will abortion and entitlement problems are not an either/or proposition
Fair enough, so long as you admit that if even one poor person wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t because you forbade her, you owe her child support for forcing her to take care of a kid she that couldn’t afford.
You essentially want to call people like me hypocrites because we feel entitlements should be limited but also feel that abortion is wrong.
No I don’t. Methinks you’re too used to generalized attacks on this board. I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so. I’m not arguing the abortion issue in general—we can save that for when you post a topic that says “abortion is wrong,” then I’ll reply “no it’s not” and we’ll have that argument.
Hairy Polemic - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Harry. How about personal responsibility? Unless that woman is legally mentally retarded, in which case she is a ward of the state just like children are in loco parentis before age 18, then the state would be obligated to provide for her and her child. If one wants freedom, then one must accept the consequences for their own behaviors. In the case of the woman above, it also follows that the state would be dictating her every move to prevent such a thing from happening.
Chief RZ - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
How about personal responsibility?
I’m sorry, is this part of the “no to funding abortion” or the “no to abortion” argument? Because the personal responsibility argument is good for telling me that she should pay for her own abortion. Alright, fair enough, I agree.
Hairy Polemic - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Fair enough, so long as you admit that if even one poor person wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t because you forbade her, you owe her child support for forcing her to take care of a kid she that couldn’t afford.
Right. Because I force her to have that child. So much for personal responsibility, eh Hair? Guess that goes out the door as soon as its convenient for you.
Though, frankly, I’m fine with aid for kids.
Because the personal responsibility argument is good for telling me that she should pay for her own abortion.
Only because you consider denying the kid of his/her right to life an option.
Rob - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Harry, I will answer in reverse. Last, I am glad that we both seem to agree with personal responsibility. Second, my personal and spiritual stance is no to abortion. That would be murder. First, I do not support taxpayer financed murder. War is not murder. it may involve killing, but of the self defensive type that one can read about in many places in the Old Testament.
Chief RZ - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Hairy Polemic - I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so.
Her kid.
Hers.
She owns it.
It is hers.
That said, she could always give it up for adoption. Your argument fails.
likwidshoe - 02:03pm on 03/31/2008
Right. Because I force her to have that child. So much for personal responsibility, eh Hair? Guess that goes out the door as soon as its convenient for you.
If you deny her the last resort right to abort it, you are forcing her to have it. But you’re right, I’ll admit that refusing to pay for the abortion is not denying one.
Her kid.
Hers.
She owns it.
It is hers.
She owns it? Cool, then society has no say in what she does with it (including killing it). If we can own human beings like chattel, then we can dispose of them no?
No, I admit that we can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder if “solving the entitlements problem” meant nothing more than cutting the spending.
You are equivocating two arguments:(1) Being against entitlements while contributing to the situation that calls for them is contradictiory. (2) Funding abortion would fix the entitlements problem. I argued the former, not the latter.
Harry. Taxpayer money is approved for all sorts of contraceptives including operations in hospitals. I approve these efforts to prevent pregnancy. I think that most people are intelligent enough to make that decision. They should also know that killing babies is immoral and should not be allowed nor taxpayer funded. The “poor” ploy does not float. I saw these “poor” people while teaching. They had $150 hair dos, $200 shoes, lied about their free lunch applications, sold drugs, prostituted themselves and corrupted as many young children as they could.
Ok, fair enough, but you’re argument is still bogus for two big reasons:
1) Not all abortions happen because of financial reasons. I’d argue that most abortions happen not because the mother can’t care for the child, but because the mother doesn’t want to. Not every abortion results in the murder of a child that would have been a burden to the entitlements system.
2) There are other options to cutting down on unwanted pregnancies too without resorting to killing the children.
I know you have no moral compunctions about abortion - which is troubling to me in and of itself - but surely you should be able to admit that at-will abortion and entitlement problems are not an either/or proposition.
You essentially want to call people like me hypocrites because we feel entitlements should be limited but also feel that abortion is wrong.
Clearly, you’re the one who is wrong here.
Fair enough, so long as you admit that if even one poor person wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t because you forbade her, you owe her child support for forcing her to take care of a kid she that couldn’t afford.
No I don’t. Methinks you’re too used to generalized attacks on this board. I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so. I’m not arguing the abortion issue in general—we can save that for when you post a topic that says “abortion is wrong,” then I’ll reply “no it’s not” and we’ll have that argument.
Harry. How about personal responsibility? Unless that woman is legally mentally retarded, in which case she is a ward of the state just like children are in loco parentis before age 18, then the state would be obligated to provide for her and her child. If one wants freedom, then one must accept the consequences for their own behaviors. In the case of the woman above, it also follows that the state would be dictating her every move to prevent such a thing from happening.
I’m sorry, is this part of the “no to funding abortion” or the “no to abortion” argument? Because the personal responsibility argument is good for telling me that she should pay for her own abortion. Alright, fair enough, I agree.
Right. Because I force her to have that child. So much for personal responsibility, eh Hair? Guess that goes out the door as soon as its convenient for you.
Though, frankly, I’m fine with aid for kids.
Only because you consider denying the kid of his/her right to life an option.
Harry, I will answer in reverse. Last, I am glad that we both seem to agree with personal responsibility. Second, my personal and spiritual stance is no to abortion. That would be murder. First, I do not support taxpayer financed murder. War is not murder. it may involve killing, but of the self defensive type that one can read about in many places in the Old Testament.
Hairy Polemic - I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so.
Her kid.
Hers.
She owns it.
It is hers.
That said, she could always give it up for adoption. Your argument fails.
If you deny her the last resort right to abort it, you are forcing her to have it. But you’re right, I’ll admit that refusing to pay for the abortion is not denying one.
She owns it? Cool, then society has no say in what she does with it (including killing it). If we can own human beings like chattel, then we can dispose of them no?