CDZ Fair and Balanced Input

[Concerned Patriot]

I would like some input from both sides of the political spectrum. If you disagree with my point, please let me know where my logic falls short:

The best thing about America is the freedom of choice we have to do, say, and act as we please as long as it does not harm anyone else. I believe too often freedom of choice is confused with freedom from consequence. I do and will fight for the right of any American citizen to exercise their Constitutional rights in all situations, but I do not find it correct for someone to use their poor life choices as an excuse to utilize our taxpayer dollars to remedy their situation.

I believe that if you want to eat fast food and drink soda every day of your life, or smoke, or drink, or gamble you have the right to do so. I however do not believe that we, the taxpayers, should be obligated to pay for someone's disability payments, medical bills, or welfare directly caused by these decisions. If you want to smoke, fine. Just don't expect to have your lung cancer treatment subsidized by your fellow taxpayers. If you want to drink alcohol in excess, fine. Just don't expect disability payments from the government for your "disability" of alcoholism. Freedom of choice in America is what makes this country great. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences, good and bad, of your decisions.

Again. just looking for some fair and honest debate.

 

[Pogo]

Fair enough. But how are you gonna determine that their, say, cirrhosis came from drinking?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

 

[Onyx]

There is no such thing as 'freedoms.' There is only freedom.

Statists had to conflate liberty with freedom in order to justify their authoritarian rhetoric. Not even the founding fathers of the United States confused the two terms.

 

[jwoodie]

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

Correction: Does that freedom of choice extend to terminating the life of another human being? If you disagree, please SPECIFY EXACTLY WHEN a "fetus" becomes a human being (e.g., heartbeat, viability, pain threshold, contractions, dilation, crowning, head exposed, complete expulsion without breathing assistance, severance of umbilical cord, first year after birth, etc.).

Are you HONEST ENOUGH to ANSWER this QUESTION?

 

[Concerned Patriot]

This is beyond the scope of the topic I was attempting to discuss. But to give my answer, as I stated in the beginning of my original question, we Americans have the freedom to make the choices we want, as long as it does not harm anyone else. I would argue that abortion harms the child in the womb. My personal belief is that life begins at conception. However, from a legal and constitutional perspective that position in and of itself does not hold water. My political belief if that life should be defined as when the fetus develops a heartbeat. We are often legally declare life over when our heart stops beating, why could not the inverse be true of when life begins? I believe in a person's right to have relations with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. I also believe that contraception is a right (not a governmental obligation to provide) people can choose to invest and take advantage of. I also believe that if you are mature enough to choose to have sex, then you are mature enough to live with the consequences of that decision.

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

 

[Concerned Patriot]

Fair enough. But how are you gonna determine that their, say, cirrhosis came from drinking?

I don't have a good answer for that as I am not a doctor, however, I do believe that there should be qualifiers based upon one's life style choices. Much like there are disqualifiers for being on a transplant list (i.e. smoking, drinking, etc.) there should be similar disqualifiers for taxpayer-funded healthcare. We treat transplant organs on an almost sacred level, as I think we should. My belief is that we should treat our tax dollars with the same sanctity. My thought is that if you want to make decisions that are proven potentially chronically harmful to yourself and ergo costly, you have a responsibility to purchase your own private health insurance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Fair enough. But how are you gonna determine that their, say, cirrhosis came from drinking?

So much for abstraction....

 

[jwoodie]

if you are mature enough to choose to have sex, then you are mature enough to live with the consequences of that decision.

Puberty may confer physical maturity, but many people never achieve emotional maturity. And the consequences of their decisions are often borne by others, whether directly (children) or by tax payers. Ideally, one should have to get a prescription in order to become pregnant, not to avoid it.

P.S. I appreciate your honesty regarding the point at which a fetus becomes a human being, something that most "pro-choice" people are unwilling and/or incapable of doing. The irony is that their insistence on a federal determination of this issue will ultimately lead to greater restrictions than if left to the States.

 

[Toronado3800]

I would like some input from both sides of the political spectrum. If you disagree with my point, please let me know where my logic falls short:

The best thing about America is the freedom of choice we have to do, say, and act as we please as long as it does not harm anyone else. I believe too often freedom of choice is confused with freedom from consequence. I do and will fight for the right of any American citizen to exercise their Constitutional rights in all situations, but I do not find it correct for someone to use their poor life choices as an excuse to utilize our taxpayer dollars to remedy their situation.

I believe that if you want to eat fast food and drink soda every day of your life, or smoke, or drink, or gamble you have the right to do so. I however do not believe that we, the taxpayers, should be obligated to pay for someone's disability payments, medical bills, or welfare directly caused by these decisions. If you want to smoke, fine. Just don't expect to have your lung cancer treatment subsidized by your fellow taxpayers. If you want to drink alcohol in excess, fine. Just don't expect disability payments from the government for your "disability" of alcoholism. Freedom of choice in America is what makes this country great. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences, good and bad, of your decisions.

Again. just looking for some fair and honest debate.

Seems like a bit of liberal big government picking what you get to do.

It would be interesting to do the math and see if the average dead at 65 smoker cost us more or less then a man lingering about to 80 who survives Round-up cancer and red meat prostate cancer.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

Correction: Does that freedom of choice extend to terminating the life of another human being? If you disagree, please SPECIFY EXACTLY WHEN a "fetus" becomes a human being (e.g., heartbeat, viability, pain threshold, contractions, dilation, crowning, head exposed, complete expulsion without breathing assistance, severance of umbilical cord, first year after birth, etc.).

Are you HONEST ENOUGH to ANSWER this QUESTION?

Sorry, but typing in all caps isn't going to scare me, and, because I have a life, I'm not on this board to answer your questions on demand. That being said, here's what I think..................

When do I believe that a person is a person? When they start breathing. When do I believe a person ceases to be a person? When they quit breathing permanently.

Now, you might try to say, what about those that can't breathe without assistance? Well, are they breathing or not, whether it is assisted or not doesn't matter, the only question is, can they breathe? Same goes for preemie babies as well.

Why do I say that? Because Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them. And, one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

I also believe that the body is just a receptacle for the soul. A place to keep us tethered to this dimension, and when we leave here, there is no longer a requirement for our body. And, I don't believe a soul actually enters a body until the baby makes it's first cry.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I haven't heard that one before.....That's probably a good thing, particularly if the person who presented it were to have further weakened their argument by also this....

one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

Just so you understand...the idea of correlating the start and end of life with a defining event or process is okay enough. It's that breathing is the process you've chosen. If breathing's end defined the moment of death, people, in theory, need never die.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I haven't heard that one before.....That's probably a good thing, particularly if the person who presented it were to have further weakened their argument by also this....

one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

Just so you understand...the idea of correlating the start and end of life with a defining event or process is okay enough. It's that breathing is the process you've chosen. If breathing's end defined the moment of death, people, in theory, need never die.

Ever read Genesis 2:7? Here, let me help you out.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

As far as keeping the body alive indefinitely, well, it can be done, but eventually family members decide that it's time to pull the plug and let them pass, and they quit breathing. BTW..........if you are against abortion because it's somehow "alive" to you as a fetus, what about pulling the plug on a relative because the doctor says there is no hope? The person on the machine is still "alive", so are the relatives committing murder by pulling the plug?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I haven't heard that one before.....That's probably a good thing, particularly if the person who presented it were to have further weakened their argument by also this....

one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

Just so you understand...the idea of correlating the start and end of life with a defining event or process is okay enough. It's that breathing is the process you've chosen. If breathing's end defined the moment of death, people, in theory, need never die.

Ever read Genesis 2:7? Here, let me help you out.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

As far as keeping the body alive indefinitely, well, it can be done, but eventually family members decide that it's time to pull the plug and let them pass, and they quit breathing. BTW..........if you are against abortion because it's somehow "alive" to you as a fetus, what about pulling the plug on a relative because the doctor says there is no hope? The person on the machine is still "alive", so are the relatives committing murder by pulling the plug?

I don't have any dispute with the fact of Genesis saying that. I'm sure that's what it says. What one finds in Genesis has no bearing on my critical evaluation of the rational merits of the line of argument upon which you've embarked. That you've now taken to further weaken your position by replying, in effect, "because Genesis says so" informs me that for this thread, I'm not going to engage further with you.

 

[yiostheoy]

I would like some input from both sides of the political spectrum. If you disagree with my point, please let me know where my logic falls short:

The best thing about America is the freedom of choice we have to do, say, and act as we please as long as it does not harm anyone else. I believe too often freedom of choice is confused with freedom from consequence. I do and will fight for the right of any American citizen to exercise their Constitutional rights in all situations, but I do not find it correct for someone to use their poor life choices as an excuse to utilize our taxpayer dollars to remedy their situation.

I believe that if you want to eat fast food and drink soda every day of your life, or smoke, or drink, or gamble you have the right to do so. I however do not believe that we, the taxpayers, should be obligated to pay for someone's disability payments, medical bills, or welfare directly caused by these decisions. If you want to smoke, fine. Just don't expect to have your lung cancer treatment subsidized by your fellow taxpayers. If you want to drink alcohol in excess, fine. Just don't expect disability payments from the government for your "disability" of alcoholism. Freedom of choice in America is what makes this country great. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences, good and bad, of your decisions.

Again. just looking for some fair and honest debate.

The best thing about America is that if you can get in or you are born here, there are a lot of great jobs.

The second best part is the representative government which changes hands every few years.

Unfortunately America is becoming a plutocracy of the rich like any banana republic.

Trump is the richest of the rich that has ever become POTUS.

He bought the nomination.

And his shallow promises got him elected by the have-not's.

Hopefully he will help America not hurt it.

 

[jwoodie]

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

Correction: Does that freedom of choice extend to terminating the life of another human being? If you disagree, please SPECIFY EXACTLY WHEN a "fetus" becomes a human being (e.g., heartbeat, viability, pain threshold, contractions, dilation, crowning, head exposed, complete expulsion without breathing assistance, severance of umbilical cord, first year after birth, etc.).

Are you HONEST ENOUGH to ANSWER this QUESTION?

Sorry, but typing in all caps isn't going to scare me, and, because I have a life, I'm not on this board to answer your questions on demand. That being said, here's what I think..................

When do I believe that a person is a person? When they start breathing. When do I believe a person ceases to be a person? When they quit breathing permanently.

Now, you might try to say, what about those that can't breathe without assistance? Well, are they breathing or not, whether it is assisted or not doesn't matter, the only question is, can they breathe? Same goes for preemie babies as well.

Why do I say that? Because Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them. And, one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

I also believe that the body is just a receptacle for the soul. A place to keep us tethered to this dimension, and when we leave here, there is no longer a requirement for our body. And, I don't believe a soul actually enters a body until the baby makes it's first cry.

Just to be clear, do you think it should be legal to dismember a fully formed baby who has been expelled from the mother's body but not yet breathing on its own? Or do you favor a more passive approach of placing it on a cold shelf until its heart stops beating?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Does that freedom of choice extend to women and their right to choose to have a child or not? I mean, if they can pay for it themselves, and find a doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, it should be up to choice, shouldn't it?

Correction: Does that freedom of choice extend to terminating the life of another human being? If you disagree, please SPECIFY EXACTLY WHEN a "fetus" becomes a human being (e.g., heartbeat, viability, pain threshold, contractions, dilation, crowning, head exposed, complete expulsion without breathing assistance, severance of umbilical cord, first year after birth, etc.).

Are you HONEST ENOUGH to ANSWER this QUESTION?

Sorry, but typing in all caps isn't going to scare me, and, because I have a life, I'm not on this board to answer your questions on demand. That being said, here's what I think..................

When do I believe that a person is a person? When they start breathing. When do I believe a person ceases to be a person? When they quit breathing permanently.

Now, you might try to say, what about those that can't breathe without assistance? Well, are they breathing or not, whether it is assisted or not doesn't matter, the only question is, can they breathe? Same goes for preemie babies as well.

Why do I say that? Because Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the breath of life into them. And, one of the ways to determine a person is dead is if they quit breathing and you can't get them to breathe again.

I also believe that the body is just a receptacle for the soul. A place to keep us tethered to this dimension, and when we leave here, there is no longer a requirement for our body. And, I don't believe a soul actually enters a body until the baby makes it's first cry.

Just to be clear, do you think it should be legal to dismember a fully formed baby who has been expelled from the mother's body but not yet breathing on its own? Or do you favor a more passive approach of placing it on a cold shelf until its heart stops beating?

Now you're just throwing up strawmen, but okay, I'll answer................

If the child is stillborn and is unable to be resuscitated, if the mother wishes to donate whatever organs the child has that can be harvested and used, her wishes should be carried out. If not, then she should be able to take custody of the body for burial or cremation. Same as when someone is on life support and their next of kin are asked if they can use the organs of the person on life support.

 

[jwoodie]

If the child is stillborn and is unable to be resuscitated, if the mother wishes to donate whatever organs the child has that can be harvested and used, her wishes should be carried out. If not, then she should be able to take custody of the body for burial or cremation. Same as when someone is on life support and their next of kin are asked if they can use the organs of the person on life support.

My question was not about a stillborn child and you know it. It was about an otherwise healthy child who had not yet taken a breath. Why do you have to resort to this type of deception?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the child is stillborn and is unable to be resuscitated, if the mother wishes to donate whatever organs the child has that can be harvested and used, her wishes should be carried out. If not, then she should be able to take custody of the body for burial or cremation. Same as when someone is on life support and their next of kin are asked if they can use the organs of the person on life support.

My question was not about a stillborn child and you know it. It was about an otherwise healthy child who had not yet taken a breath. Why do you have to resort to this type of deception?

If it's an otherwise healthy child who has yet to take a breath, that means the doctors have yet to get their lungs stimulated so that they can take a breath. I would expect a doctor to work as long and as hard as they could to save the life until there is no hope.

At the point there is no hope and the child is stillborn, then, if the woman wanted to donate their child's organs to help other children, she should have that right if she wants it, because the relatives of old people on life support have that option.

 

[Pete7469]

This is beyond the scope of the topic I was attempting to discuss. But to give my answer, as I stated in the beginning of my original question, we Americans have the freedom to make the choices we want, as long as it does not harm anyone else. I would argue that abortion harms the child in the womb. My personal belief is that life begins at conception. However, from a legal and constitutional perspective that position in and of itself does not hold water. My political belief if that life should be defined as when the fetus develops a heartbeat. We are often legally declare life over when our heart stops beating, why could not the inverse be true of when life begins? I believe in a person's right to have relations with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. I also believe that contraception is a right (not a governmental obligation to provide) people can choose to invest and take advantage of. I also believe that if you are mature enough to choose to have sex, then you are mature enough to live with the consequences of that decision.

You won't get an argument out of me for anything you've said.

I would even argue that we could provide a much better standard of living for people who through no fault of their own are disabled, or people we're morally obligated to take care of like veterans, if we weren't subsidizing sloth.

As far as abortion goes, decent ethical women accept the consequences of their actions. Self absorbed leftist sociopaths wantonly kill their babies. These same parasites want society to pay for their birth control and then piss and moan about "government in THEIR bedrooms". I actually prefer that these creatures were sterilized but usually after a few abortions their insides are too fucked up to carry their genetic garbage to full term anyway.

In addition to that, millions of unwanted children in society would not reduce our prison system.