Zone1 Right-Wing Conservatives Aren't "Pro-Life", they're Pro-Death.

[Red Front]

Couchpotato​

You wrote:

"You dont have to support the government subsidization of a person's entire life....."


Response:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life", that's an exaggerated description of what I'm actually saying. What I am pointing out is that you seem to be so interested in the welfare and survival of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, in other people's wombs, while not showing much concern for the welfare and survival of children and their single mothers. Many of these women who abort their pregnancies, do so for financial reasons. Your conservative, Republican politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers who are in need of assistance, with housing, food, daycare services, job training, school lunches..etc. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the life of embryos and fetuses seriously. You have a lot of love and compassion for embryos and fetuses, but nothing for single mothers and their babies.


You wrote:
just because you don't think murdering them is ok. Thats seriously faulty logic.

Response:
You consider zygotes, embryos, and undeveloped fetuses human beings, but nonetheless, it's not necessarily the case, that they are actually human beings or persons. That's just your opinion. I and many others, consider zygotes, embryos and undeveloped, unviable fetuses, potential human beings, not actual ones. You show more concern for potential human beings than for actual human beings, namely single mothers and their babies. Your Republican politics that defunds important social programs for the poor, results in more death and murder, so your claim that you're preventing murder is absurd. Our prisons are full of violent criminals who were born and raised by single mothers, in abject poverty, in very dangerous, unhealthy circumstances that could've been mitigated by government social programs, that you are defunding.



You wrote:
Whether I support cradle to grave welfare/government assistance. or even something as simple as food stamps or WIC has nothing to do with my stance on whether killing an innocent human being is ok or not.

Response:

You seem to care a lot about the welfare and survival of "human beings" in wombs, but don't care much for their welfare and survival outside of the womb. You defund social programs that help the single mothers who you want to force to remain pregnant and give birth, to human beings that are going to live in horrible conditions, that can very well lead to child neglect, abuse and even death. The probability of these children growing up and becoming violent criminals due to being raised in crime, drug infested and unhealthy environments is much greater than a child born and raised by parents who want and can support them.

You're also indifferent to the fact that pregnancy has its own set of difficulties and hazards for the woman who you want to force to remain pregnant for nine months. They might lose their jobs and who's going to support them? Do you care if she becomes homeless with the fetus or baby that you supposedly care so much about? Your concern for what is in the womb, is simply a false facade masking your contempt for women who you consider promiscuous. You want to punish "harlots", hence your attempt to force them to remain pregnant and give birth. You have no right, even Biblically, to force women to remain pregnant. It's simply your opinion that what they've conceived in the early stages of gestation is a human being. Women's wombs or reproductive systems shouldn't be subject or held hostage by your personal opinions.

You wrote:

Call me crazy but murder is always bad.

Response:

Yes, but a woman aborting her pregnancy is not necessarily murder, especially when it is terminated early. It's simply your opinion and opinions are like heads, everyone has one. Your sentiments and personal appraisal of the value of zygotes, embryos and undeveloped fetuses is just that, your personal feelings and appraisal. You have no right to impose your opinions on the definition of human life on pregnant women and what is in their wombs. That's their pregnancy and bodies, not yours. They have sovereignty over their reproductive system and life, their wombs, and their bodies. You have no right to force a woman to remain pregnant and carry the life in their womb to term. Your opinion about that life in the womb being a human being and not just a potential human being is just your personal opinion. Supposedly you're a champion of liberty and personal freedom, but you want to hold hostage or wombjack, women's reproductive systems and bodies.

I and others would take your opinion more seriously if you were more concerned for actual human beings and not just for zygotes, embryos, and undeveloped fetuses. As a GOP conservative your politics and record is dismal when it comes to defending human rights. The rights of actual human beings. Right now Republican conservatives like you are supporting the economic sanctions on Afghanistan, that are resulting in the death of children. This is the politics that you support:

​

Stop sanctioning the people of Afghanistan and freezing their assets abroad. Billions of dollars of Afghan money, and gold, were frozen in Europe due to Washington's demands. You don't care, you will justify and defend the foreign policy of the United States government ("my country right or wrong"), yet pretend to be "pro-life". You're not pro-life, you're pro-death.

​

Do you care about those children? No, you don't, you're going to defend American foreign policy, regardless of how homicidal and destructive it is. You don't care about those children. You care about zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, that's what you care about. The complete hypocrisy of American "pro-life" conservativism. Oh you're so so concerned about life in the womb, oh you're so "pro-life", wow, you're so "pro-life", yeah OK. Sure.



You wrote:
You are also painting with an extremely broad brush. Your stance is that basically everyone who is pro life is anti single mother and wants nothing to do with them once the baby is born. And using that line of thinking you are trying to justify the killing of these children based on the potential suffering or hardship they and or their mothers might have to endure. Even if your premise is true that all prolife people are anti single mother (which is complete and utter BS) it hardly justifies your solution.

Response:

Your pro-life stance is BS. You talk about helping poor single mothers, but you conservatives don't provide the assistance they need. Sorry, the food pantry in your Pentecostal church is not enough. Your catholic charity organization is not enough. There are tens of thousands of Americans right now dying of cancer, begging for charity at GoFundMe.Com, and most of them unfortunately aren't going to get the help that they need. Private run charities are simply not enough.

My mother's husband, my step-father, about ten years ago when he was in his 50s, and not eligible for Medicare benefits, had to become dirt poor and file for bankruptcy to qualify for SSD and Medicaid. His body, out of the blue, just stopped producing cortisol and he was dying. It was a problem with one of his glands, I forgot the name of it. He couldn't afford the deductibles and co-payments of his private insurance company (I believe it was "United Health") and they were constantly refusing to cover certain medical services that he needed, so he, a CNC machinist and programmer, earning a very good salary, was forced to leave his job of over twenty years, and go bankrupt, in order to qualify for SSD and Medicaid. Private charities are not enough, we need a good government that will handle these types of emergencies. Your hatred of government isn't Biblical or rational.

You are supposedly "pro-life" yet against government social services, always doing everything possible to defund them, claiming that private charities are enough and ironically, that results in more death. You're not pro-life, you're pro-me-myself and I. You're pro-dog eat dog world, you're pro Darwinian "survival of the fittest", you're pro-embryos and fetuses, you're pro sanctioning countries and starving pregnant mothers and their fetuses, you're pro forcing women to remain pregnant, and pro ruining the lives of people in other countries with economic sanctions and wars, but supposedly you're "PRO-LIFE". No, you're not, you're PRO-DEATH.

 

[fncceo]

Right-Wing Conservatives Aren't "Pro-Life"​

Just anti-Gulag...

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

way too long
make your point concisely

 

[Red Front]

way too long
make your point concisely

You want to discuss complex topics, then acquire a love for reading or just place me on ignore. You just want to throw darts at the opposition and not bother reading a thorough rebuttal to your arguments. That's fine don't read what I write, others will.

 

[Red Front]

Just anti-Gulag...

View attachment 673485

If you want to debate socialism, communism, "gulags", open another thread.

 

[Hossfly]

Couchpotato​

You wrote:

"You dont have to support the government subsidization of a person's entire life....."


Response:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life", that's an exaggerated description of what I'm actually saying. What I am pointing out is that you seem to be so interested in the welfare and survival of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, in other people's wombs, while not showing much concern for the welfare and survival of children and their single mothers. Many of these women who abort their pregnancies, do so for financial reasons. Your conservative, Republican politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers who are in need of assistance, with housing, food, daycare services, job training, school lunches..etc. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the life of embryos and fetuses seriously. You have a lot of love and compassion for embryos and fetuses, but nothing for single mothers and their babies.


You wrote:
just because you don't think murdering them is ok. Thats seriously faulty logic.

Response:
You consider zygotes, embryos, and undeveloped fetuses human beings, but nonetheless, it's not necessarily the case, that they are actually human beings or persons. That's just your opinion. I and many others, consider zygotes, embryos and undeveloped, unviable fetuses, potential human beings, not actual ones. You show more concern for potential human beings than for actual human beings, namely single mothers and their babies. Your Republican politics that defunds important social programs for the poor, results in more death and murder, so your claim that you're preventing murder is absurd. Our prisons are full of violent criminals who were born and raised by single mothers, in abject poverty, in very dangerous, unhealthy circumstances that could've been mitigated by government social programs, that you are defunding.



You wrote:
Whether I support cradle to grave welfare/government assistance. or even something as simple as food stamps or WIC has nothing to do with my stance on whether killing an innocent human being is ok or not.

Response:

You seem to care a lot about the welfare and survival of "human beings" in wombs, but don't care much for their welfare and survival outside of the womb. You defund social programs that help the single mothers who you want to force to remain pregnant and give birth, to human beings that are going to live in horrible conditions, that can very well lead to child neglect, abuse and even death. The probability of these children growing up and becoming violent criminals due to being raised in crime, drug infested and unhealthy environments is much greater than a child born and raised by parents who want and can support them.

You're also indifferent to the fact that pregnancy has its own set of difficulties and hazards for the woman who you want to force to remain pregnant for nine months. They might lose their jobs and who's going to support them? Do you care if she becomes homeless with the fetus or baby that you supposedly care so much about? Your concern for what is in the womb, is simply a false facade masking your contempt for women who you consider promiscuous. You want to punish "harlots", hence your attempt to force them to remain pregnant and give birth. You have no right, even Biblically, to force women to remain pregnant. It's simply your opinion that what they've conceived in the early stages of gestation is a human being. Women's wombs or reproductive systems shouldn't be subject or held hostage by your personal opinions.

You wrote:

Call me crazy but murder is always bad.

Response:

Yes, but a woman aborting her pregnancy is not necessarily murder, especially when it is terminated early. It's simply your opinion and opinions are like heads, everyone has one. Your sentiments and personal appraisal of the value of zygotes, embryos and undeveloped fetuses is just that, your personal feelings and appraisal. You have no right to impose your opinions on the definition of human life on pregnant women and what is in their wombs. That's their pregnancy and bodies, not yours. They have sovereignty over their reproductive system and life, their wombs, and their bodies. You have no right to force a woman to remain pregnant and carry the life in their womb to term. Your opinion about that life in the womb being a human being and not just a potential human being is just your personal opinion. Supposedly you're a champion of liberty and personal freedom, but you want to hold hostage or wombjack, women's reproductive systems and bodies.

I and others would take your opinion more seriously if you were more concerned for actual human beings and not just for zygotes, embryos, and undeveloped fetuses. As a GOP conservative your politics and record is dismal when it comes to defending human rights. The rights of actual human beings. Right now Republican conservatives like you are supporting the economic sanctions on Afghanistan, that are resulting in the death of children. This is the politics that you support:

​

Stop sanctioning the people of Afghanistan and freezing their assets abroad. Billions of dollars of Afghan money, and gold, were frozen in Europe due to Washington's demands. You don't care, you will justify and defend the foreign policy of the United States government ("my country right or wrong"), yet pretend to be "pro-life". You're not pro-life, you're pro-death.

​

Do you care about those children? No, you don't, you're going to defend American foreign policy, regardless of how homicidal and destructive it is. You don't care about those children. You care about zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, that's what you care about. The complete hypocrisy of American "pro-life" conservativism. Oh you're so so concerned about life in the womb, oh you're so "pro-life", wow, you're so "pro-life", yeah OK. Sure.



You wrote:
You are also painting with an extremely broad brush. Your stance is that basically everyone who is pro life is anti single mother and wants nothing to do with them once the baby is born. And using that line of thinking you are trying to justify the killing of these children based on the potential suffering or hardship they and or their mothers might have to endure. Even if your premise is true that all prolife people are anti single mother (which is complete and utter BS) it hardly justifies your solution.

Response:

Your pro-life stance is BS. You talk about helping poor single mothers, but you conservatives don't provide the assistance they need. Sorry, the food pantry in your Pentecostal church is not enough. Your catholic charity organization is not enough. There are tens of thousands of Americans right now dying of cancer, begging for charity at GoFundMe.Com, and most of them unfortunately aren't going to get the help that they need. Private run charities are simply not enough.

My mother's husband, my step-father, about ten years ago when he was in his 50s, and not eligible for Medicare benefits, had to become dirt poor and file for bankruptcy to qualify for SSD and Medicaid. His body, out of the blue, just stopped producing cortisol and he was dying. It was a problem with one of his glands, I forgot the name of it. He couldn't afford the deductibles and co-payments of his private insurance company (I believe it was "United Health") and they were constantly refusing to cover certain medical services that he needed, so he, a CNC machinist and programmer, earning a very good salary, was forced to leave his job of over twenty years, and go bankrupt, in order to qualify for SSD and Medicaid. Private charities are not enough, we need a good government that will handle these types of emergencies. Your hatred of government isn't Biblical or rational.

You are supposedly "pro-life" yet against government social services, always doing everything possible to defund them, claiming that private charities are enough and ironically, that results in more death. You're not pro-life, you're pro-me-myself and I. You're pro-dog eat dog world, you're pro Darwinian "survival of the fittest", you're pro-embryos and fetuses, you're pro sanctioning countries and starving pregnant mothers and their fetuses, you're pro forcing women to remain pregnant, and pro ruining the lives of people in other countries with economic sanctions and wars, but supposedly you're "PRO-LIFE". No, you're not, you're PRO-DEATH.

View attachment 673486​

Jeremiah 1-5 refutes your suggestion that a fetus is not a human, but an embryo or a zygote.

God says:

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[Red Front]

Jeremiah 1-5 refutes your suggestion that a fetus is not a human, but an embryo or a zygote.

God says:

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

That verse doesn't say that YHWH equates life in the womb to a breathing, living soul outside of the womb. You're reading that verse in isolation, without considering the overall context of the Hebrew Bible.

Exodus 21:22

22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall[b] be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Death of fetus =Pays Fine, not a capital crime.​

Death of woman = Execution for murder​

​

The ancient Jewish historian Josephus in the first century AD writes:

"He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money... as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb...but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death." (Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 4.8.33).

The Jewish philosopher Philo, an older contemporary of Josephus, follows this interpretation:

"If the child within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine...But if the child had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper and distinctive qualities, he shall die." (Philo. On Special Laws. 3.19)

The same interpretation is evident in the Talmud and has become authoritative in Orthodox Judaism. It is because of Exodus 21:22 that even conservative Orthodox Jews say that in Jewish law the unborn child does not have the status of a person. Abortion for any reason other than for medical issues, in Judaism is considered a sin, but it is not the sin of homicide. Life in the womb is not considered a human person and living soul until it is out of the womb and breathing. That's the ancient Hebrew view of what constitutes a "living soul". The fetus is considered an appendage of the woman's body, until it is more than halfway out of the birth canal.

More, we find other passages in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. TeNaK - Torah, Nevim, Kethuvim = "Old Testament"), that clearly show that life in the womb is not equivalent to life outside of it, with respect to its value. For example:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." - Leviticus 21:9

"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Genesis 38:24

These "harlots" are burned alive, with the fetus. You so called "pro-lifers", claim that a woman that is raped and gets pregnant, should carry that life to term and give birth. You completely disregard how that will affect the life of the woman that was raped. Carrying the embryo and fetus of the rapist, because supposedly what she is carrying is a human being, and living soul. No, not according to the Bible. The two passages I just quoted show that, women and their fetuses are burned alive, together. The woman committed the crime and she and her fetus are executed. If life in the womb is considered equal to life outside of the womb, then the execution of fetuses with their mothers would be against the law that states that an actual child, a living, breathing soul, that is out of the womb, can't be executed for the crimes of their parents.


"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30).

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).

"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).


You can't execute a child for the crimes of his or her parents. So the fact that those women were executed, by being burned alive, with their fetuses, strongly suggests that the fetuses aren't considered living souls, with all of the rights afforded to actual persons or human beings. There are also many examples in your Bible that slander YHWH, falsely claiming that He ordered the wholesale slaughter, and genocidal destruction of whole nations, including children. So how can you appeal to a book that is so full of death and destruction, while asserting that you are "PRO-LIFE"? The irony.

 

[SweetSue92]

You want to discuss complex topics, then acquire a love for reading or just place me on ignore. You just want to throw darts at the opposition and not bother reading a thorough rebuttal to your arguments. That's fine don't read what I write, others will.

Good ideas don't need all these words. They can be nutshelled concisely.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life",

No but it's the lie communists sell to the unsuspecting [young and the naive]...communists have long lost every encounter with America, they have now figured out that their only salvation is to infect the system and kill Americans in the womb before they can fight back.

 

[SweetSue92]

That verse doesn't say that YHWH equates life in the womb to a breathing, living soul outside of the womb. You're reading that verse in isolation, without considering the overall context of the Hebrew Bible.

Exodus 21:22

22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall[b] be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Death of fetus =Pays Fine, not a capital crime.​

Death of woman = Execution for murder​

​

The ancient Jewish historian Josephus in the first century AD writes:

"He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money... as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb...but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death." (Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 4.8.33).

The Jewish philosopher Philo, an older contemporary of Josephus, follows this interpretation:

"If the child within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine...But if the child had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper and distinctive qualities, he shall die." (Philo. On Special Laws. 3.19)

The same interpretation is evident in the Talmud and has become authoritative in Orthodox Judaism. It is because of Exodus 21:22 that even conservative Orthodox Jews say that in Jewish law the unborn child does not have the status of a person. Abortion for any reason other than for medical issues, in Judaism is considered a sin, but it is not the sin of homicide. Life in the womb is not considered a human person and living soul until it is out of the womb and breathing. That's the ancient Hebrew view of what constitutes a "living soul". The fetus is considered an appendage of the woman's body, until it is more than halfway out of the birth canal.

More, we find other passages in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. TeNaK - Torah, Nevim, Kethuvim = "Old Testament"), that clearly show that life in the womb is not equivalent to life outside of it, with respect to its value. For example:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." - Leviticus 21:9

"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Genesis 38:24

These "harlots" are burned alive, with the fetus. You so called "pro-lifers", claim that a woman that is raped and gets pregnant, should carry that life to term and give birth. You completely disregard how that will affect the life of the woman that was raped. Carrying the embryo and fetus of the rapist, because supposedly what she is carrying is a human being, and living soul. No, not according to the Bible. The two passages I just quoted show that, women and their fetuses are burned alive, together. The woman committed the crime and she and her fetus are executed. If life in the womb is considered equal to life outside of the womb, then the execution of fetuses with their mothers would be against the law that states that an actual child, a living, breathing soul, that is out of the womb, can't be executed for the crimes of their parents.


"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30).

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).

"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).


You can't execute a child for the crimes of his or her parents. So the fact that those women were executed, by being burned alive, with their fetuses, strongly suggests that the fetuses aren't considered living souls, with all of the rights afforded to actual persons or human beings. There are also many examples in your Bible that slander YHWH, falsely claiming that He ordered the wholesale slaughter, and genocidal destruction of whole nations, including children. So how can you appeal to a book that is so full of death and destruction, while asserting that you are "PRO-LIFE"? The irony.

It seems you are young and writing for school papers, where inflating the word count is the thing to do. I get it. I did that.

Professors are terrible writers, generally. They don't write for market or how people actually read. Especially now, people want concise, direct information.

Here is your starting paragraph:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life", that's an exaggerated description of what I'm actually saying. What I am pointing out is that you seem to be so interested in the welfare and survival of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, in other people's wombs, while not showing much concern for the welfare and survival of children and their single mothers. Many of these women who abort their pregnancies, do so for financial reasons. Your conservative, Republican politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers who are in need of assistance, with housing, food, daycare services, job training, school lunches..etc. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the life of embryos and fetuses seriously. You have a lot of love and compassion for embryos and fetuses, but nothing for single mothers and their babies.

Okay, now saying the same thing formatted for the way people read:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life". You seem to be interested in the welfare of the unborn, while not showing concern for the welfare of children and their single mothers. Many women who abort do so for financial reasons. Your conservative politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the unborn seriously.

Trim, trim, trim. Less is more. It reads better and gives more "punch".

 

[SweetSue92]

I like to be thorough and if you don't want to read what I write, just don't read it. My posts and threads are not for you.

You're a good writer. Good writing is thorough with fewer words. People who love words also love that challenge.

 

[Red Front]

No but it's the lie communists sell to the unsuspecting [young and the naive]...communists have long lost every encounter with America, they have now figured out that their only salvation is to infect the system and kill Americans in the womb before they can fight back.

Really? Have you ever heard of a war called "Korea" or"Vietnam"? The communists didn't lose there, it was capitalist-USA, Babylon, that lost those wars. Right now many countries are adopting socialism, because they realize capitalism is obsolete and doesn't address the problem of unemployment caused by advanced technology. Capitalists lost many battles with the kings and nobles of Europe, until the 19th century, so to argue that socialism or communism have lost the war is quite naive. Socialism is the future.

Capitalism is what fuels the abortion industry, not communism. We eliminate most abortions, you know how? We consider food, housing, healthcare, education, employment..etc, a HUMAN RIGHT. Single pregnant women and single mothers don't have to worry about going homeless and hungry, we take care of them, just like Jesus orders His disciples to do. Capitalism is what causes all of this poverty, death, and destruction in the world, not socialism. It's your love and pursuit of your god, mammon, that consumes the world.

 

[Red Front]

It seems you are young and writing for school papers, where inflating the word count is the thing to do. I get it. I did that.

Professors are terrible writers, generally. They don't write for market or how people actually read. Especially now, people want concise, direct information.

Here is your starting paragraph:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life", that's an exaggerated description of what I'm actually saying. What I am pointing out is that you seem to be so interested in the welfare and survival of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, in other people's wombs, while not showing much concern for the welfare and survival of children and their single mothers. Many of these women who abort their pregnancies, do so for financial reasons. Your conservative, Republican politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers who are in need of assistance, with housing, food, daycare services, job training, school lunches..etc. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the life of embryos and fetuses seriously. You have a lot of love and compassion for embryos and fetuses, but nothing for single mothers and their babies.

Okay, now saying the same thing formatted for the way people read:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life". You seem to be interested in the welfare of the unborn, while not showing concern for the welfare of children and their single mothers. Many women who abort do so for financial reasons. Your conservative politics defunds government social programs that assist single mothers. You show zero concern for these single mothers in their efforts to raise their children, whom you forced to give birth to, yet expect us to consider your concern for the unborn seriously.

Trim, trim, trim. Less is more. It reads better and gives more "punch".

Thanks, I'll try to improve my writing skills.

 

[SweetSue92]

Thanks, I'll try to improve my writing skills.

If you pare down, people will read more. People are put off by a "wall of text" on a message board.

 

[Red Front]

If you pare down, people will read more. People are put off by a "wall of text" on a message board.

OK, I will do my best to be more succinct with my writing. Thanks for the constructive criticism.

 

[Red Front]

Just anti-Gulag...

View attachment 673485

Open another thread, let's debate which economic and political system has the biggest body count and causes more harm. Do it, I dare you. Do it.

 

[Darkwind]

Always with this, "We don't care what happens after the baby is born".

It is nonsense.

We do care. The reality is that people like you don't like the solutions that are offered and then equate anyone who does not agree with your solutions as not having any or not caring.

YOURS is not the only solution and it is far from the best solution.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Really? Have you ever heard of a war called "Korea" or"Vietnam"? The communists didn't lose there, it was capitalist-USA, Babylon, that lost those wars.

Tally the numbers comrade, if that's your idea of victory then I wish you many many more

Right now many countries are adopting socialism, because they realize capitalism is obsolete and doesn't address the problem of unemployment caused by advanced technology.

...and the most telling thing about that post is that the word communism is not to be found anywhere in it

Capitalists lost many battles with the kings and nobles of Europe, until the 19th century, so to argue that socialism or communism have lost the war is quite naive. Socialism is the future.

I said "America" and you changed it to "capitalism" [wonder why?] but your post is unintentionally correct in that the coming of age in America as a country and the birth of Marxism were both in the 19th century and you admit that is when europes victories over capitalism ended...freudian slip perhaps?

Capitalism is what fuels the abortion industry, not communism.

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

We eliminate most abortions, you know how?

War with America?

We consider food, housing, healthcare, education, employment..etc, a HUMAN RIGHT. Single pregnant women and single mothers don't have to worry about going homeless and hungry, we take care of them,

and then you pretend this is also true...

Response:

I'm not advocating for the government to "subsidize" a person's "entire life",

...which proves the former is just the lie sold by communists to the unsuspecting as I said it was/is...SEE:

No but it's the lie communists sell to the unsuspecting [young and the naive]

btw, you possess the authoritarian communist trait/gene of saying so very little with far too many needless/useless words

 

[Red Front]

Always with this, "We don't care what happens after the baby is born".

It is nonsense.

We do care. The reality is that people like you don't like the solutions that are offered and then equate anyone who does not agree with your solutions as not having any or not caring.

YOURS is not the only solution and it is far from the best solution.

What would be the solution for addressing the needs of poor single mothers who are being forced to remain pregnant and give birth to children they don't want? Charity? Foster care?

 

[Red Front]

Tally the numbers comrade, if that's your idea of victory then I wish you man many more


...and the most telling thing about that post is the word communism is not to be found


That would make sense since the birth of marxism was the 19th century


and then you pretend this is also true...

...which proves the former is just the lie sold by communists to the unsuspecting as I said it was/is

btw, you possess the authoritarian communist trait/gene of saying so very little with far too many needless/useless words

Franken writes:

Tally the numbers comrade, if that's your idea of victory then I wish you man many more

Response:

What was the objective of the United States in the Vietnam war? Answer: To stop socialism. Did it accomplish that? NO. The Socialist North took the whole country and it's now till this day, a socialist country.







The fact that the US invasion of Vietnam caused the death of three million Vietnamese, is nothing to brag about for the United States, it should be ashamed of its invasion of Vietnam. People are still dying today in Vietnam and Laos, from American mines and other undetonated ordinance. More bombs were dropped in Vietnam and Laos than in WW2.

​

Americans have nothing to be proud of about that war. Not only did America fail to stop socialism in Vietnam but it caused the unnecessary deaths of fifty thousand Americans. For what? For you to brag about how many people you can kill?