How do you justify...

[Cecilie1200]

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Since the parents have the responsibility to care for the children they make, that means they should have sole ultimate decision-making power over whether their children live or die. Did you want to extend that all the way until the kid is eighteen, or was there a point beforehand that you thought it might be okay for the government to object to child killing?

Where did you learn your logic skills, Adolf Hitler Elementary? You're a breathtaking mixture of immature and evil all at once.

Oh I see, you like taking it to extremes. Ok then. Are you in favor of outlawing masturbation or a woman having her period?

No, numbfuck. I DON'T like taking it to extremes. That is one of the many reasons I find your intense desire to equate "respect for human life" with "give people anything they want on the government" so objectionable: because it's injecting absurd extremes into the debate. The other reason, of course, is just that it's infantile to the point of retardation.

I am not even going to bother dignifying your - again, infantile - equating of sperm and ova with organisms with a response. Biology 101: look into it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you often assume that your perspective on the world is the only one available? If so, why?

Not at all. Now your turn to answer what I asked.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you. Let me spell it out.

Your worldview is an ignorant, uninformed, and frankly scary piece of shit. Ergo, no matter how much you THINK that any concern for other human beings MUST automatically follow your bullshit opinion that they are therefore entitled to cradle-to-grave coddling from the government, it doesn't. And the more you try to shoehorn your blind liberal agenda into any and every topic, regardless of how wildly inappropriate and irrelevant it might be, the more of a worthless oxygen thief you convince me that you are.

Or to put it more simply, any time you assume that I agree with anything that comes out of YOUR damaged brainpan, you're wrong. Just write that down somewhere, and proceed from that.

So you won't be trying to justify your hypocritical views today? You could have just said that from the get-go.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense". If you can't tell the difference between socialized medicine and infanticide, then you're frankly too stupid/too evil to deserve any more time here.

For the record, I don't think YOU deserve healthcare on someone else's dime, but you'll be happy to know that I still think the government should prevent people from actively murdering you because your existence is inconvenient to them. Contemplate the difference, and you're welcome.

Ahhh, I got it. You're all about protecting the rights of a fetus, but once that child is born...fuck 'em they're on their own. Solid thought process.

I have to assume that the only thing you've "got" is some interesting lobotomy scars.

And I have only one thing to say to a claim on the moral high ground from someone who supports infanticide for economic reasons:

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Since the parents have the responsibility to care for the children they make, that means they should have sole ultimate decision-making power over whether their children live or die. Did you want to extend that all the way until the kid is eighteen, or was there a point beforehand that you thought it might be okay for the government to object to child killing?

Where did you learn your logic skills, Adolf Hitler Elementary? You're a breathtaking mixture of immature and evil all at once.

Oh I see, you like taking it to extremes. Ok then. Are you in favor of outlawing masturbation or a woman having her period?

No, numbfuck. I DON'T like taking it to extremes. That is one of the many reasons I find your intense desire to equate "respect for human life" with "give people anything they want on the government" so objectionable: because it's injecting absurd extremes into the debate. The other reason, of course, is just that it's infantile to the point of retardation.

I am not even going to bother dignifying your - again, infantile - equating of sperm and ova with organisms with a response. Biology 101: look into it.

You're so good at avoiding answering actual questions you should turn pro. That's a skill that can't be taught. Bravo!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not at all. Now your turn to answer what I asked.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you. Let me spell it out.

Your worldview is an ignorant, uninformed, and frankly scary piece of shit. Ergo, no matter how much you THINK that any concern for other human beings MUST automatically follow your bullshit opinion that they are therefore entitled to cradle-to-grave coddling from the government, it doesn't. And the more you try to shoehorn your blind liberal agenda into any and every topic, regardless of how wildly inappropriate and irrelevant it might be, the more of a worthless oxygen thief you convince me that you are.

Or to put it more simply, any time you assume that I agree with anything that comes out of YOUR damaged brainpan, you're wrong. Just write that down somewhere, and proceed from that.

So you won't be trying to justify your hypocritical views today? You could have just said that from the get-go.

I'm sorry, but what made you assume that you were anyone important enough to demand justification of ANYTHING from me, completely aside from the fact that you wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek?

I stand by what I've said from the get-go, and I'm very sorry you need so many repetitions to get it: you are an immature, evil fuckwad who doesn't deserve the respect of having anything explained to him, since you're either unwilling or incapable of trying to understand it.

The phrase "pearls before swine" always seems to leap to mind whenever you're spewing. I wonder why that is.

 

[RDD_1210]

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense". If you can't tell the difference between socialized medicine and infanticide, then you're frankly too stupid/too evil to deserve any more time here.

For the record, I don't think YOU deserve healthcare on someone else's dime, but you'll be happy to know that I still think the government should prevent people from actively murdering you because your existence is inconvenient to them. Contemplate the difference, and you're welcome.

Ahhh, I got it. You're all about protecting the rights of a fetus, but once that child is born...fuck 'em they're on their own. Solid thought process.

I have to assume that the only thing you've "got" is some interesting lobotomy scars.

And I have only one thing to say to a claim on the moral high ground from someone who supports infanticide for economic reasons:

Shocking, more attempted personal attacks. Weird how when you have no response, you point out how horrible I am for wanting healthcare for everyone. Making comments about my brain power and equating me to Hitler. Seriously?

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you. Let me spell it out.

Your worldview is an ignorant, uninformed, and frankly scary piece of shit. Ergo, no matter how much you THINK that any concern for other human beings MUST automatically follow your bullshit opinion that they are therefore entitled to cradle-to-grave coddling from the government, it doesn't. And the more you try to shoehorn your blind liberal agenda into any and every topic, regardless of how wildly inappropriate and irrelevant it might be, the more of a worthless oxygen thief you convince me that you are.

Or to put it more simply, any time you assume that I agree with anything that comes out of YOUR damaged brainpan, you're wrong. Just write that down somewhere, and proceed from that.

So you won't be trying to justify your hypocritical views today? You could have just said that from the get-go.

I'm sorry, but what made you assume that you were anyone important enough to demand justification of ANYTHING from me, completely aside from the fact that you wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek?

I stand by what I've said from the get-go, and I'm very sorry you need so many repetitions to get it: you are an immature, evil fuckwad who doesn't deserve the respect of having anything explained to him, since you're either unwilling or incapable of trying to understand it.

The phrase "pearls before swine" always seems to leap to mind whenever you're spewing. I wonder why that is.

We've established that I am beneath you and on the same level as Hitler who doesn't deserve to breath. What else ya got? You seem like a well adjusted person. Anything else you want to get off your chest while we're at it?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Abortion is murder. Those programs are socialism. Difference.

 

[California Girl]

It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. It's the parents.

Why is personal responsibility such a difficult concept for some people? Do you live your life just trying to make excuses for it and to avoid doing anything for yourself?

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

Yes, it should be an individual woman's choice not to get pregnant if she does not want or cannot afford to raise that child. And it should be an individual man's choice not to impregnate a woman if he does not prepared to undertake to raise a child with that woman.

 

[Lorissa]

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense".

LOL!

There is no difference. A child can just as easily die of an illness once they're born, but you don't seem to care much about that. In fact, it would appear that a collection of non-sentient cells has more of a right to live than anyone already born and aware of their suffering and death.

What it really boils down to is that you want to use the government to enforce your particular morality, but you denounce the idea of government enforcing a morality you disagree with. Thus, there appears to be no immorality in allowing living, breathing, self-aware folks to die due to lack of health care, but it is highly immoral to kill a collection of non-sentient cells.

In fact, it calls into question the idea of morality altogether. If you wish to compare another poster with Hitler, allow me to further the metaphor. Your idea is akin to saying, "Well, it was evil for Hitler to put those people in gas chambers. He should have had them all shot, instead."

In other words, it's not the actual death that you abhor, but the fact that it's an abortion.

 

[Lorissa]

Yes, it should be an individual woman's choice not to get pregnant if she does not want or cannot afford to raise that child. And it should be an individual man's choice not to impregnate a woman if he does not prepared to undertake to raise a child with that woman.

Wishfully thinking about abstinence = epic fail.

 

[RDD_1210]

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

Yes, it should be an individual woman's choice not to get pregnant if she does not want or cannot afford to raise that child. And it should be an individual man's choice not to impregnate a woman if he does not prepared to undertake to raise a child with that woman.

Right, and it should be a womans choice as to whether or not to carry that pregnancy to full term.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense".

LOL!

There is no difference.

Really? There's no difference? Seriously? So you're telling me that you are SUCH a sucking parasite on society and so attuned to the idea that everyone around you owes you something just for adding your wonderfulness to their world that you would blame your neighbor for your child's death from polio because he didn't pay for the vaccination just as much as you would for him running that child over with his car? That's actually the position you want to advocate?

A child can just as easily die of an illness once they're born, but you don't seem to care much about that. In fact, it would appear that a collection of non-sentient cells has more of a right to live than anyone already born and aware of their suffering and death.

Big difference between caring about something and seeing it as something I personally or the government using my tax money should be responsible for. I care about children starving in Africa, but that doesn't mean I'm planning to fly over there with the contents of my pantry, or that I think the US government should bring them all here and give them welfare checks.

As for non-sentient cells having "more of a right to live", YOU'RE here. You might not want to attack the legal and moral supports for THAT very much.

As it happens, protecting unborn babies from being deliberately killed is not affording them MORE rights than anyone. It is simply affording them the SAME rights as other humans, since in case you hadn't noticed, the government protects YOU from the same damn thing. And it doesn't make me feel compelled to support YOUR lazy ass, either.

This would require you to have the brain wattage to understand the difference between "protection from killing" and "rewarding you for existing", though.

What it really boils down to is that you want to use the government to enforce your particular morality, but you denounce the idea of government enforcing a morality you disagree with. Thus, there appears to be no immorality in allowing living, breathing, self-aware folks to die due to lack of health care, but it is highly immoral to kill a collection of non-sentient cells.

Yes, you silly bitch, I DO want to use the government to enforce morality. EVERYONE wants to use the government to enforce moral behavior, because that's what the purpose of laws IS. Just because you don't happen to hold the same morals that I do doesn't change that fact. I realize that the laws you favor don't enforce a particularly HIGH standard of moral behavior, but they are nevertheless doing the exact same thing.

No, there is no immorality in expecting living, breathing, self-aware folks to provide for themselves and their families instead of whining and sniveling about how someone else owes it to them to play nursemaid throughout their unproductive drone lives. You mistake childish sentimentality for morals.

In fact, it calls into question the idea of morality altogether. If you wish to compare another poster with Hitler, allow me to further the metaphor. Your idea is akin to saying, "Well, it was evil for Hitler to put those people in gas chambers. He should have had them all shot, instead."

Only to someone who dislikes morals to begin with because they're a barrier to living a completely selfish, self-absorbed existence guilt-free. For those who understand and respect the purpose and value of morals, NOTHING calls them into question.

Well, I have allowed you to TRY to further the metaphor, and you have failed miserably. I am no more killing people by refusing to buy them health insurance than I am starving YOU to death because I haven't purchased you groceries . . . although I suspect I might have by way of food stamps. If you truly believe there is a parallel between shooting you in the head and declining to support you financially, then you make a compelling argument in favor of the former.

In other words, it's not the actual death that you abhor, but the fact that it's an abortion.

No, dumbshit. I don't abhor death in general, because it's a natural part of life and happens to everyone. What I abhor is DELIBERATELY KILLING PEOPLE. Not just in abortions, but in any form. I ALSO abhor parents beating their children to death, and pedophiles kidnapping and murdering children, and people running red lights and hitting them as they ride their bikes, and psychopaths shooting up schools because they want to be on TV. And when you get right down to it, I also abhor the deliberate killing of innocent human beings who are not children, but I'll admit to having a special revulsion for anyone who wants to believe that helpless children are disposable to their "convenience".

Nothing you say is going to give you the moral high ground with that position, and nothing you say is going to make me feel guilty for spitting on you and people like you. If you were hoping to be convincing with the "you mean, cruel, horrible person", I'm still ahead on points just because I don't applaud the deaths of millions of babies a year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it should be an individual woman's choice not to get pregnant if she does not want or cannot afford to raise that child. And it should be an individual man's choice not to impregnate a woman if he does not prepared to undertake to raise a child with that woman.

Wishfully thinking about abstinence = epic fail.

Well, I do thank you for clarifying that YOU are unable to keep your pants up, but I wish you'd consider that not everyone in the country is an uncontrolled savage.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I take it you too are in favor of making sure everyone gets healthcare they need, regardless of cost.

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I don't.

I'm comparing dollars to medical care.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I don't.

I'm comparing dollars to medical care.

Medical care that directly affects human life. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I don't.

I'm comparing dollars to medical care.

Medical care that directly affects human life. Thanks for clearing that up.

Eating and breathing also directly effects human life. So what's your point?

 

[Anachronism]

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

It's something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, spectrum. I know it's not a terribly popular concept in this day and age but some of us do still believe in it.

When you go and stick Tab A into Slot B, you do so knowing that there is the POTENTIAL (regardless of what precautions are taken) to create a new life. If you are not both willing and capable of handling what that means and the responsibilities that come with it then Tab A and Slot B should not be meeting each other. It's really that simple.

For some of us, agreeing to the act of sexual intercourse is the same as agreeing to potentially become a parent, and to support that child(ren) for at least the first 18 years of their life.

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't.

I'm comparing dollars to medical care.

Medical care that directly affects human life. Thanks for clearing that up.

Eating and breathing also directly effects human life. So what's your point?

That you're a hypocrite.

You are concerned with an unborn child and placing dollars above the well being of a fetus, but once the child is born, they are on their own.

 

[RDD_1210]

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

It's something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, spectrum. I know it's not a terribly popular concept in this day and age but some of us do still believe in it.

When you go and stick Tab A into Slot B, you do so knowing that there is the POTENTIAL (regardless of what precautions are taken) to create a new life. If you are not both willing and capable of handling what that means and the responsibilities that come with it then Tab A and Slot B should not be meeting each other. It's really that simple.

For some of us, agreeing to the act of sexual intercourse is the same as agreeing to potentially become a parent, and to support that child(ren) for at least the first 18 years of their life.

You're right. Personal responsibility. Personal as in it's their decision, not yours. And responsibility as in they are doing the responsible thing by not bringing a child in to this world that they are not fit to care for. Time to listen to some of your own crap that you spew.