So Pro Lifers , are you willing to pay for this baby??

[hadit]

See previous post.

I quoted your post and that's what came up?

No, I am not willing to pay for her baby, her, her husband, her son, mailman, poolboy or anyone else. I want to buy insurance for healthy people because I've taken care of myself, like a good auto driver. If a doctor or hospital wants to take on a charity case they should be allowed to.

That baby was born with a heart condition, so you are not pro life?

Are you going to be honest, since you brought abortion into the situation, and state that the pro-abort position would be to destroy that baby's body before he/she was ever born?

I mean, you're talking about people taking God's position to decide if a child's life is worth spending a lot of money to save, while (apparently) ignoring those who play God by deciding a child's life will not be worth living before birth.

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

See previous post.

I quoted your post and that's what came up?

No, I am not willing to pay for her baby, her, her husband, her son, mailman, poolboy or anyone else. I want to buy insurance for healthy people because I've taken care of myself, like a good auto driver. If a doctor or hospital wants to take on a charity case they should be allowed to.

That baby was born with a heart condition, so you are not pro life?

Are you going to be honest, since you brought abortion into the situation, and state that the pro-abort position would be to destroy that baby's body before he/she was ever born?

I mean, you're talking about people taking God's position to decide if a child's life is worth spending a lot of money to save, while (apparently) ignoring those who play God by deciding a child's life will not be worth living before birth.

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

 

[hadit]

I quoted your post and that's what came up?

No, I am not willing to pay for her baby, her, her husband, her son, mailman, poolboy or anyone else. I want to buy insurance for healthy people because I've taken care of myself, like a good auto driver. If a doctor or hospital wants to take on a charity case they should be allowed to.

That baby was born with a heart condition, so you are not pro life?

Are you going to be honest, since you brought abortion into the situation, and state that the pro-abort position would be to destroy that baby's body before he/she was ever born?

I mean, you're talking about people taking God's position to decide if a child's life is worth spending a lot of money to save, while (apparently) ignoring those who play God by deciding a child's life will not be worth living before birth.

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

We're talking about the loss of life from lack of expensive life sustaining measures vs loss from deliberate killing. They're not really the same thing.

I oppose the deliberate destruction of life at all parts of the spectrum, including euthanasia and capital punishment. We ALL, however, do in fact tolerate others dying in order to get what we want.

Case in point, we tolerate the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives every year that could be prevented with a few simple changes, yet we will never make those changes because we value what we would lose more than we value the lives lost. I'm talking about high speed driving. We could prevent the loss of thousands of lives if no motor vehicle was able to exceed say 25 mph, but we won't do that because we want to drive fast more than we want to save those lives.

Is everyone who wants to drive fast thus anti-life? Of course not, because they are not out to deliberately kill other human beings.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That baby was born with a heart condition, so you are not pro life?

Are you going to be honest, since you brought abortion into the situation, and state that the pro-abort position would be to destroy that baby's body before he/she was ever born?

I mean, you're talking about people taking God's position to decide if a child's life is worth spending a lot of money to save, while (apparently) ignoring those who play God by deciding a child's life will not be worth living before birth.

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

We're talking about the loss of life from lack of expensive life sustaining measures vs loss from deliberate killing. They're not really the same thing.

I oppose the deliberate destruction of life at all parts of the spectrum, including euthanasia and capital punishment. We ALL, however, do in fact tolerate others dying in order to get what we want.

Case in point, we tolerate the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives every year that could be prevented with a few simple changes, yet we will never make those changes because we value what we would lose more than we value the lives lost. I'm talking about high speed driving. We could prevent the loss of thousands of lives if no motor vehicle was able to exceed say 25 mph, but we won't do that because we want to drive fast more than we want to save those lives.

Is everyone who wants to drive fast thus anti-life? Of course not, because they are not out to deliberately kill other human beings.

And I'm saying that the withholding of care resulting in the loss of a life is also deliberate destruction of that life, and if money is the reason it is criminal. But I'm speaking more broadly, beyond extraordinary medical care. Lets talk about routine medical care, lets talk about nutrition and housing. Just a few of the things that so called pro life people would rather ignore .

Yet some how I have become the hypocrite??!! Lets recap:
My position is simply this ....women should have the choice, they should have domain over their bodies. We do not know when life begins but I do not believe that it is at conception. We do know however, that the pregnant woman is very much a human being and that life, including the quality of that life must also be considered Right or wrong, that is my moral position.

Secondly, I believe that every child that comes into the world deserves the best chance of having a happy, healthy life . If it tax government programs to achieve that at the taxpayer's expense, so be it.

You see an inconsistency between those two positions. However, even if that is true, it is not an argument against my first-pro choice -position. It is in fact a logical fallacy intended to discredit me rather than address my argument head on. This is what you're doing:

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

It also applies to all of the other dung that you threw at the wall like fast driving.

 

[hadit]

Are you going to be honest, since you brought abortion into the situation, and state that the pro-abort position would be to destroy that baby's body before he/she was ever born?

I mean, you're talking about people taking God's position to decide if a child's life is worth spending a lot of money to save, while (apparently) ignoring those who play God by deciding a child's life will not be worth living before birth.

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

We're talking about the loss of life from lack of expensive life sustaining measures vs loss from deliberate killing. They're not really the same thing.

I oppose the deliberate destruction of life at all parts of the spectrum, including euthanasia and capital punishment. We ALL, however, do in fact tolerate others dying in order to get what we want.

Case in point, we tolerate the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives every year that could be prevented with a few simple changes, yet we will never make those changes because we value what we would lose more than we value the lives lost. I'm talking about high speed driving. We could prevent the loss of thousands of lives if no motor vehicle was able to exceed say 25 mph, but we won't do that because we want to drive fast more than we want to save those lives.

Is everyone who wants to drive fast thus anti-life? Of course not, because they are not out to deliberately kill other human beings.

And I'm saying that the withholding of care resulting in the loss of a life is also deliberate destruction of that life, and if money is the reason it is criminal. But I'm speaking more broadly, beyond extraordinary medical care. Lets talk about routine medical care, lets talk about nutrition and housing. Just a few of the things that so called pro life people would rather ignore .

Yet some how I have become the hypocrite??!! Lets recap:
My position is simply this ....women should have the choice, they should have domain over their bodies. We do not know when life begins but I do not believe that it is at conception. We do know however, that the pregnant woman is very much a human being and that life, including the quality of that life must also be considered Right or wrong, that is my moral position.

Secondly, I believe that every child that comes into the world deserves the best chance of having a happy, healthy life . If it tax government programs to achieve that at the taxpayer's expense, so be it.

You see an inconsistency between those two positions. However, even if that is true, it is not an argument against my first-pro choice -position. It is in fact a logical fallacy intended to discredit me rather than address my argument head on. This is what you're doing:

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

It also applies to all of the other dung that you threw at the wall like fast driving.

It depends on your definition of pro-life. Most pro-lifers differentiate between the deliberate taking of life and lives lost because society cannot afford to extend expensive medical services to everyone.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you rephrase the question?

As long as they aren't government programs and policies.

Never mind, you answered the question. No government programs . No safety net that might provide a sense of security to someone who is grappling with the dilemma of whether or not to bring a child to term. You are not pro life any more than those who are anti-choice are.

Safety nets aren't such a bad thing. I just don't want government deciding which pregnancies should be prevented and which promoted. I think government should serve as the "referee" for society, not as its coach.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You alternately said " no gov. programs, then "Safety nets aren't such a bad thing"

I didn't say, "no government programs". I said that programs and polices that help prevent unwanted pregnancies are fine as long as they aren't government programs. In and of itself, a safety net is not much of a threat to liberty. The problem is that such programs tend to get used as a means of controlling people - as you're suggesting.

You most certainly did say "no government programs"

If you re-read, you'll find you are in error.

What controls people is the fear that they won't have enough to eat, wont get care or go bankrupt if they get seriously injured or sick, and having rats in an apartment in the slum.

Exactly. And if you control access to those things, then you control people pretty reliably.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So you basically saying that those of us who are pro women's choice-not pro abortion- pro choice are hypocrites for taking the position that the child- if born should have every opportunity to live. Well , not nearly as hypocritical as those who claim to be prolife as in anti abortion, then are willing to abandon the child after birth,

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

We're talking about the loss of life from lack of expensive life sustaining measures vs loss from deliberate killing. They're not really the same thing.

I oppose the deliberate destruction of life at all parts of the spectrum, including euthanasia and capital punishment. We ALL, however, do in fact tolerate others dying in order to get what we want.

Case in point, we tolerate the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives every year that could be prevented with a few simple changes, yet we will never make those changes because we value what we would lose more than we value the lives lost. I'm talking about high speed driving. We could prevent the loss of thousands of lives if no motor vehicle was able to exceed say 25 mph, but we won't do that because we want to drive fast more than we want to save those lives.

Is everyone who wants to drive fast thus anti-life? Of course not, because they are not out to deliberately kill other human beings.

And I'm saying that the withholding of care resulting in the loss of a life is also deliberate destruction of that life, and if money is the reason it is criminal. But I'm speaking more broadly, beyond extraordinary medical care. Lets talk about routine medical care, lets talk about nutrition and housing. Just a few of the things that so called pro life people would rather ignore .

Yet some how I have become the hypocrite??!! Lets recap:
My position is simply this ....women should have the choice, they should have domain over their bodies. We do not know when life begins but I do not believe that it is at conception. We do know however, that the pregnant woman is very much a human being and that life, including the quality of that life must also be considered Right or wrong, that is my moral position.

Secondly, I believe that every child that comes into the world deserves the best chance of having a happy, healthy life . If it tax government programs to achieve that at the taxpayer's expense, so be it.

You see an inconsistency between those two positions. However, even if that is true, it is not an argument against my first-pro choice -position. It is in fact a logical fallacy intended to discredit me rather than address my argument head on. This is what you're doing:

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

It also applies to all of the other dung that you threw at the wall like fast driving.

It depends on your definition of pro-life. Most pro-lifers differentiate between the deliberate taking of life and lives lost because society cannot afford to extend expensive medical services to everyone.

My definition of truly pro life which I can respect- if not support- is someone who places the same value on life after the child is brought into the world as they do while in utero.

You can differentiate all that you want. The fact is that you can't put a price tag on human life and say that someone is expendable because the cost of preserving that life is burdensome. That does not garner much respect from me.

And keep in mind that I'm not just talking about expensive medical services for a seriously ill child. As I have made clear, I'm talking about all of the `things that promote health, well, being and a quality of life. You're talking about social and economic Darwinism and I have a big problem with that.

You distinction is false and yet another logical fallacy:

Distinction Without a Difference

Description: The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you re-read, you'll find you are in error.

Really? May I call you attention to your post # 24

Me: Do you support programs and policies that help tp prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that help women and families of limited means actually provide for a child that they chose to bring to term?


You: As long as they aren't government programs and policies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Never mind, you answered the question. No government programs . No safety net that might provide a sense of security to someone who is grappling with the dilemma of whether or not to bring a child to term. You are not pro life any more than those who are anti-choice are.

Safety nets aren't such a bad thing. I just don't want government deciding which pregnancies should be prevented and which promoted. I think government should serve as the "referee" for society, not as its coach.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You alternately said " no gov. programs, then "Safety nets aren't such a bad thing"

I didn't say, "no government programs". I said that programs and polices that help prevent unwanted pregnancies are fine as long as they aren't government programs. In and of itself, a safety net is not much of a threat to liberty. The problem is that such programs tend to get used as a means of controlling people - as you're suggesting.

You most certainly did say "no government programs"

If you re-read, you'll find you are in error.

What controls people is the fear that they won't have enough to eat, wont get care or go bankrupt if they get seriously injured or sick, and having rats in an apartment in the slum.

Exactly. And if you control access to those things, then you control people pretty reliably.

And who is controlling access? It's the corporations and the complicit government that we now have. I want government that ensures access and controls the providers of goods and services to ensure the those who need them get them. You seem to be hung up on this control thing.

 

[hadit]

I am saying that it is playing God to declare a baby's life not worth living to excuse destroying the developing body.

You have made that clear and I can respect that, because abortion is not a good thing and we should do all that we can to minimize it's usage. However what is not at all clear is whether or not you have earned the right to call yourself pro life in the true sense of the words.

We're talking about the loss of life from lack of expensive life sustaining measures vs loss from deliberate killing. They're not really the same thing.

I oppose the deliberate destruction of life at all parts of the spectrum, including euthanasia and capital punishment. We ALL, however, do in fact tolerate others dying in order to get what we want.

Case in point, we tolerate the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives every year that could be prevented with a few simple changes, yet we will never make those changes because we value what we would lose more than we value the lives lost. I'm talking about high speed driving. We could prevent the loss of thousands of lives if no motor vehicle was able to exceed say 25 mph, but we won't do that because we want to drive fast more than we want to save those lives.

Is everyone who wants to drive fast thus anti-life? Of course not, because they are not out to deliberately kill other human beings.

And I'm saying that the withholding of care resulting in the loss of a life is also deliberate destruction of that life, and if money is the reason it is criminal. But I'm speaking more broadly, beyond extraordinary medical care. Lets talk about routine medical care, lets talk about nutrition and housing. Just a few of the things that so called pro life people would rather ignore .

Yet some how I have become the hypocrite??!! Lets recap:
My position is simply this ....women should have the choice, they should have domain over their bodies. We do not know when life begins but I do not believe that it is at conception. We do know however, that the pregnant woman is very much a human being and that life, including the quality of that life must also be considered Right or wrong, that is my moral position.

Secondly, I believe that every child that comes into the world deserves the best chance of having a happy, healthy life . If it tax government programs to achieve that at the taxpayer's expense, so be it.

You see an inconsistency between those two positions. However, even if that is true, it is not an argument against my first-pro choice -position. It is in fact a logical fallacy intended to discredit me rather than address my argument head on. This is what you're doing:

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

It also applies to all of the other dung that you threw at the wall like fast driving.

It depends on your definition of pro-life. Most pro-lifers differentiate between the deliberate taking of life and lives lost because society cannot afford to extend expensive medical services to everyone.

My definition of truly pro life which I can respect- if not support- is someone who places the same value on life after the child is brought into the world as they do while in utero.

Pro-lifers by and large do exactly that. They want those lives protected from destruction by those who would otherwise destroy them. Pro-lifers want to prevent child abuse and murder just as much as they want to prevent abortion.

You can differentiate all that you want. The fact is that you can't put a price tag on human life and say that someone is expendable because the cost of preserving that life is burdensome. That does not garner much respect from me.

But I have shown that you do exactly that. Do you support forcing all motor vehicles to move 25 mph or slower? Of course not. It would be too burdensome on society, and the thousands of deaths every year are an acceptable price to pay.

And keep in mind that I'm not just talking about expensive medical services for a seriously ill child. As I have made clear, I'm talking about all of the `things that promote health, well, being and a quality of life. You're talking about social and economic Darwinism and I have a big problem with that.

You distinction is false and yet another logical fallacy:

Distinction Without a Difference

Description: The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

And therein lies your problem. You are defining what is acceptable health, wellbeing and quality of life and claiming that anyone who disagrees with that definition thus cannot be pro-life.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Pro-lifers by and large do exactly that. They want those lives protected from destruction by those who would otherwise destroy them. Pro-lifers want to prevent child abuse and murder just as much as they want to prevent abortion.

Child abuse and murder. Great!! But what about everything else that I mentioned.. What about the governments role?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But I have shown that you do exactly that. Do you support forcing all motor vehicles to move 25 mph or slower? Of course not. It would be too burdensome on society, and the thousands of deaths every year are an acceptable price to pay.

As I previously pointed out, that is a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to hypocrisy . It can also be a weak analogy. Not providing the essentials of life is a different issue from that of protecting people from hazards and themselves. It is not just about the cost, it is about morality and decency and compassion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And therein lies your problem. You are defining what is acceptable health, wellbeing and quality of life and claiming that anyone who disagrees with that definition thus cannot be pro-life.

My problem? Really? You problem because you can't see or won't acknowledge your hypocrisy. And no, I am not employing your appeal to hypocrisy to discredit your argument. As I have said, I can respect a person who is truly pro life. I am simply calling you on your inconsistency.

 

[hadit]

Pro-lifers by and large do exactly that. They want those lives protected from destruction by those who would otherwise destroy them. Pro-lifers want to prevent child abuse and murder just as much as they want to prevent abortion.

Child abuse and murder. Great!! But what about everything else that I mentioned.. What about the governments role?

What about the government's role? We managed as a species to survive quite well without government handing out the goodies.

 

[hadit]

But I have shown that you do exactly that. Do you support forcing all motor vehicles to move 25 mph or slower? Of course not. It would be too burdensome on society, and the thousands of deaths every year are an acceptable price to pay.

As I previously pointed out, that is a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to hypocrisy . It can also be a weak analogy. Not providing the essentials of life is a different issue from that of protecting people from hazards and themselves. It is not just about the cost, it is about morality and decency and compassion.

Which we all have. Where we differ is the best way to express it. You seem to think it is by the government forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. I think it is best expressed by individuals freely helping those in need.

 

[dblack]

Safety nets aren't such a bad thing. I just don't want government deciding which pregnancies should be prevented and which promoted. I think government should serve as the "referee" for society, not as its coach.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You alternately said " no gov. programs, then "Safety nets aren't such a bad thing"

I didn't say, "no government programs". I said that programs and polices that help prevent unwanted pregnancies are fine as long as they aren't government programs. In and of itself, a safety net is not much of a threat to liberty. The problem is that such programs tend to get used as a means of controlling people - as you're suggesting.

You most certainly did say "no government programs"

If you re-read, you'll find you are in error.

What controls people is the fear that they won't have enough to eat, wont get care or go bankrupt if they get seriously injured or sick, and having rats in an apartment in the slum.

Exactly. And if you control access to those things, then you control people pretty reliably.

And who is controlling access? It's the corporations and the complicit government that we now have. I want government that ensures access and controls the providers of goods and services to ensure the those who need them get them. You seem to be hung up on this control thing.

Our Republican led government is threatening to yank the benefits "ensured" by a Democrat led government from up to 22 million Americans. And they want to give even more benes to the insurance industry.

It's astonishing to me that you can see the obvious fact that government is complicit with special interests, most notably powerful corporations, yet you think government should have even more power to force its will on all of us.

 

[hadit]

And therein lies your problem. You are defining what is acceptable health, wellbeing and quality of life and claiming that anyone who disagrees with that definition thus cannot be pro-life.

My problem? Really? You problem because you can't see or won't acknowledge your hypocrisy. And no, I am not employing your appeal to hypocrisy to discredit your argument. As I have said, I can respect a person who is truly pro life. I am simply calling you on your inconsistency.

It is useless to argue about who is pro-life when the definition of the term isn't even agreed upon.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Pro-lifers by and large do exactly that. They want those lives protected from destruction by those who would otherwise destroy them. Pro-lifers want to prevent child abuse and murder just as much as they want to prevent abortion.

Child abuse and murder. Great!! But what about everything else that I mentioned.. What about the governments role?

What about the government's role? We managed as a species to survive quite well without government handing out the goodies.

When was that ? Before the industrial revolution? Before the great depression? Times have changed. Social welfare programs actually support capitalism and a free market that expands and contracts over time , increasing and decreasing the need for labor, and ensuring that the labor is there when needed. But, we are really getting way off topic here

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

individuals freely helping those in need.

Seriously ? Charity? Meeting the needs of all of those left out in the cold by the free market economy. ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You alternately said " no gov. programs, then "Safety nets aren't such a bad thing"

I didn't say, "no government programs". I said that programs and polices that help prevent unwanted pregnancies are fine as long as they aren't government programs. In and of itself, a safety net is not much of a threat to liberty. The problem is that such programs tend to get used as a means of controlling people - as you're suggesting.

You most certainly did say "no government programs"

If you re-read, you'll find you are in error.

What controls people is the fear that they won't have enough to eat, wont get care or go bankrupt if they get seriously injured or sick, and having rats in an apartment in the slum.

Exactly. And if you control access to those things, then you control people pretty reliably.

And who is controlling access? It's the corporations and the complicit government that we now have. I want government that ensures access and controls the providers of goods and services to ensure the those who need them get them. You seem to be hung up on this control thing.

Our Republican led government is threatening to yank the benefits "ensured" by a Democrat led government from up to 22 million Americans. And they want to give even more benes to the insurance industry.

It's astonishing to me that you can see the obvious fact that government is complicit with special interests, most notably powerful corporations, yet you think government should have even more power to force its will on all of us.

Now I actually don't know what you're talking about. The Republican Gov. that you refer to is trying to force its will on us. The gov. that I want to would protect us from the will of the powerful and wealthy and greedy. I'm not so naïve as to not know that Democrats are not also in bed with special interests but it comes down to the degree to which that is the case. You seem to think that Dems and Republicans are essentially the same. Maybe that was true at one time but not today, not by a long shot.