If You are Pro-Choice, can You be a Conservative?

[Midnight Marauder]

You did not answer the question: What logic or reasoning you used to reach your positions. The questions are not rhetorical; if you cannot present any reasoning and your positions reflect no intelligent thought, then simply admit so and I will not expect any intelligent responses from you in the future.

"It is what I say it is" is your standard answer. It is not. Look at the posts, the timestamps. You have taken ZERO time to read my posts and think about them. Cogitate. Ruminate. I have no time for you. You are dismissed.

in other words, you cannot answer the question or explain your reasoning- because no though or reasoning was involved

No intelligence will be expected of you in the future, little moron; go outside and play

I answered all the questions, some of them even before they were asked. It's not my fault you cannot read and comprehend.

 

[JBeukema]

You did not answer them and you provided no reasoning for your positions

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You did not answer them and you provided no reasoning for your positions

Continuing to lie and repeat the lie over and over is the mark of the shallow, imbecilic, ignorant and untrained mind. It's buffoonery. You never bothered to read my posts and understand them or even think about them, and instead started firing off knee-jerk questions that if you had actually read and understood, were indeed answered. And also in doing so, failed to answer any of mine.

In the give and take of conversation, you totally forgot about the "give" part.

See?

 

[JBeukema]

You keep saying they're answered.. yet you produce no answers... you merely waste time attacking the person who dares force you to think

You asked two questions, and I answered them directly Go back and read again

 

[code1211]

Ah, there it is. Republicans are extremists. Democrats are what?

A little less so. LOL Do you not think controlling another's life is extreme? And free market ideology is at another extreme. Prove me wrong.

Yes and yes as stated. Circumstance and extent change the extreme-ness of any position.

However, pragmatism and rationality soften the extremes. What makes sense at one time and in one situation is lunacy in another. Having a pre-set opinion on importnat matters is a good way to become an extremist.

Are Republicans extremists? Are Democrats extremists? Whatever your answer is to either question will apply equally to both.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You keep saying they're answered.. yet you produce no answers... you merely waste time attacking the person who dares force you to think

You asked two questions, and I answered them directly Go back and read again

Read my posts, then look at your questions again. You will see they are answered.

And you did not answer my questions, you merely made statements which actually dodged the questions.

And remember, being defined is not the same as being "attacked."

 

[midcan5]

I am a Conservative and therefore have no representation in our government.

I don't understand the rational supports for taking the incentives away from developing wealth thereby providing private sources of capital for economic expansion and community improvement.

It is curious how we can see these things so differently. This is your government as well as mine and while it is far cry from perfect it works well.

As far as the robber barons you mention, they were part of the reason our economy collapsed in the 1930s. The consolidation of so much power and wealth in the hands of the few created a mess. If anything created the middle class it was unions and the GI bill along with a corporate sense that shared resources helped everyone. That and the growth of industry from the war created our middle class. Societies do not prosper when you have the rich and everyone else, any view of third world nations demonstrates this perfectly. Read Derrick Jensen's book, link below, it will give another view of Morgan and others.

The Main Causes of the Great Depression
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm
Timeline of the Great Depression


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII Adam Smith

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Make-Believe-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1931498571/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245510969&sr=1-7]Amazon.com: The Culture of Make Believe: Derrick Jensen: Books[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

If you're too stupid to understand my answer to your question, there is no hope for you. It is very simple, my little retarded friend *patpat*

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If you're too stupid to understand my answer to your question, there is no hope for you. It is very simple, my little retarded friend *patpat*

Please tell me you're not a religious fundie. If you are, you should never claim to be making intelligent arguments.

 

[JBeukema]

Oncce again, MM demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity

Way to pay attention, smart guy

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I am a Conservative and therefore have no representation in our government.

Sure you do. It's just a extremely small minority representation.

 

[code1211]

When did stealing the wealth of others become an act of compassion?

Probably around the same time it became depicted as innovative entrepreneurship.

Or part of an 'ideal commune' ?

Hardly. In an ideal commune, the wealth of one is given freely for the needs of others. That giving could consist of actually giving it away or could consist of investing in the infrastructure such as room and board of the others.

Stealing is the act of a theif. Giving is the act of a benefactor. A gift is not loot. Our system is turning the act of recieving into a right and the act of being stolen from into a responsibility. When the giving and recieving of wealth is a required function of a society regulated by disinterested and uninformed political hacks, according to rules set by dishonest and ambitious graft merchants, we steer our future into dangerous and unsustainable areas.

This is exactly where we are headed. We may already have arrived.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Oncce again, MM demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity

Way to pay attention, smart guy

I have ignored you, until today. That is true.

And once again, you didn't answer. Fundie or not?

 

[code1211]

I recognize the social need for abortion in certain cases, and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault. After that, yeah we pay that too. But we're going to throw in a bonus, some help for you so we don't see you with this dangerous problem any more. We are going to tie your tubes, because obviously you're a danger to yourself. End of problem.

The problem I have with this solution is that it forces the woman to go through surgery (you can't do a tubal on a woman without it) just to have it done and then another one to have it reversed. I don't think anyone should be able to force me to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure and ALL surgeries have inherent dangers involved. Also, tubal ligations are meant to be permanent not temporary, forms of bc.

Now I do agree that we shouldn't be having to foot the bill for multiple abortions but would probably go with having an IUD inserted into repeat customers NOT surgery.
In the end though neither of these is really an option. You can't stop people from being stupid and you don't have the right to tell someone what HAS to be done with their body whether it's not allowing them to have an abortion or forcing them to take reproductive precautions when having sex. Some people will simply continue to be, repeatedly, stupid no matter how many times they make the same mistake and we will continue to be told that we have some sort of moral responsibility to pay for their mistakes.

The problem with this is simply the Rights/Responsibilities thing. If the girl can't help herself, then let's let her do what she feels compelled to do, but stop the suffering. If she feels she can live without responsibility, someone must take that responsibility for her actions.

If it is her choice to live her life as if she cannot become pregnant, it makes sense to make her dreams come true. If we demand that she has any responsibility, ability to plan or capability to restain and she does not, we as a people are stupid and she as an individual is nuts to pronise so.

Sterilize the girl and take the question off the table. We do it to dogs and cats when they display similar levels of precaution.

 

[necritan]

A Libertarian would be a pro-choice conservative.

Another bullshit response.....

I am a Libertarian...and I am not pro-choice.

The issue comes down to whether one believes the life in the womb is human or not yet.

Abortion is a gray area for libertarians for this reason......

As a Libertarian who believes the life of a human in the womb to be valid upon conception....I believe they have the right to life. I believe the fetus to be a seperate entity from the woman itself...

Amazing eh??

 

[necritan]

Ah, there it is. Republicans are extremists. Democrats are what?

A little less so. LOL Do you not think controlling another's life is extreme? And free market ideology is at another extreme. Prove me wrong.

True conservatives want to control peoples lives??.....

 

[code1211]

I am a Conservative and therefore have no representation in our government.

I don't understand the rational supports for taking the incentives away from developing wealth thereby providing private sources of capital for economic expansion and community improvement.

It is curious how we can see these things so differently. This is your government as well as mine and while it is far cry from perfect it works well.

As far as the robber barons you mention, they were part of the reason our economy collapsed in the 1930s. The consolidation of so much power and wealth in the hands of the few created a mess. If anything created the middle class it was unions and the GI bill along with a corporate sense that shared resources helped everyone. That and the growth of industry from the war created our middle class. Societies do not prosper when you have the rich and everyone else, any view of third world nations demonstrates this perfectly. Read Derrick Jensen's book, link below, it will give another view of Morgan and others.

The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII Adam Smith

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Make-Believe-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1931498571/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245510969&sr=1-7]Amazon.com: The Culture of Make Believe: Derrick Jensen: Books[/ame]

Giving Unions credit for creating a middle class pre supposes that the wealth was already created. It is the Capitalists like those listed above that created the wealth that was subsequently divided.

Ford created the Automobile Industry and pioneered a wage rate that was about double that available anywhere else.

Firestone created the tire industry.

Edison created about everything else available at the time.

These guys created Wealth. The Rouge River plant was a marvel of vision, engineering, hope and courage. The combination of the efforts of these six men in concert with all of the multitudes that were employed and directed by them and that purchased their products is what created the American economy.

There were some growing pains and injustice along the way, but the wealth created has spilled over to run onto everything in the country.

Unions, the government and the individual can redistribute wealth, but only the visionaries and the movers and the shakers can create wealth. There is a huge difference. The redistribution erodes, shrinks and depletes wealth while the creation grows wealth.

Regarding whether this society has poor people in it, all societies do. Where there is greater wealth, as in the USA, there are more people who have more, as in the Middle Class. Where there are people, some will be achievers and some will be non achievers in all areas of life and financial success is one of them

Without having previously had the wealth created, that wealth cannot be redistributed.

 

[Navy1960]

First welcome boxcargirl, and yes I am "pro-choice" I won't have anyone telling me I cannot drink my coffee in the morning. Of course if by conservative you mean, supports a Govt. that knows it's constitutional duties and performs them and is fiscially conservative and spends money on programs to supports it's constitutional duties which do not include mandating laws that regulate the physical bodies of it's citizens. If these citizens break the laws of the land and that includes ALL of them then they should be subject to it's penalties as well and on a personal level boxcargirl I believe that common sense went out the window a long time ago in this debate. So in answer to your question of course a person can be anything they choose to be, and that includes "pro-choice" and a conservative the hard part is actually being it, the easy part is saying it. If you look at the word Liberal in it's true form and have talked on this topic before as well, in it's true form a liberal is actually someone would want less Govt. controls and not more of them. So in that sense the modern liberal is more of a neo-socialist.

I'm going to do some looking up on this neo-socialist. Thanks for your excellent observation!!!!! Everything in life is easier said than done, and common sense disappeared ages ago. Ever read the common sense obituary???????

Not yet boxcargirl, however the title pretty much say's a lot doesn't it?

 

[JBeukema]

So, MM still reuses to forward any reasoning behind if positions


Because nonte was involved in his posts

 

[Luissa]

We have a new member to USMB.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/79492-pro-choice-conservative.html

I would like to welcome boxcargirl to this little corner of the Internet.

Her intro got me wondering. She claims to be a conservative and and is pro-choice. In most western nations, you can be a conservative and be pro-choice. But what about America?

Can you be pro-choice and be a conservative?

yes! Prime example is Barry Goldwater! Plus abortion should have nothing to do with politics.
If the RNC would get away from the abortion and homosexual debate they would probably gain many new member or get back old ones.