Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It seems like conservatives would be for abortion because it would mean less liberal offspring crowding the planet, destroying the free press, corrupting the intelligence agencies and stealing elections.Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.
So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)
Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.
The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.
My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.
Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.
That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.
Here is more information on what actually is the US federal government's "debt". We often hear conservatives, including the supposed disciples of Jesus, say that they don't want to fund government programs that house the homeless or provide grants to people who want to study a trade, get some job training. What they fail to realize is that, the federal government doesn't need their taxes to fund its programs. That's a myth.
You are not honest, so your post is meaningless.In all honesty, I'm surprised the extreme pro-lifers aren't waging a war on masturbation.
The US government doesn’t produce wealth. There is no way possible for a government to “make“ money other than through taxation of one form or another. I don’t need t po watch a video to know that..Watch the video.
The federal government is the exclusive issuer of the US dollar, hence it doesn't need taxes to fund itself. Taxes at the federal level are for the purpose of maintaining the value of the dollar and controlling inflation. The budgetary limits of the federal government are defined by our nation's GDP (production capacity). Local and state governments fund themselves from taxes and the federal government.The US government doesn’t produce wealth. There is no way possible for a government to “make“ money other than through taxation of one form or another. I don’t need t po watch a video to know that..
You are not honest, so your post is meaningless.
The part where you say empathy. You need distinctions between empathy, compassion, and moral decision making. Empathy is not the solution when problems divide people, it's a poor guide.Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.
So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)
Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.
The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.
My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.
Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.
That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.
What does it matter?How many and how often?
If you force her to remain pregnant, you're going to end up paying much more. About 80% of our prison population is comprised of men that were raised in poverty, by single mothers, in crime and drug-infested communities. A considerable % of criminals and homeless people were raised in foster care. At the age of 18, they're "let loose", and they're on their own, often resulting in them becoming homeless
Yeah.MMT. Ask Sri Lanka how that turns outThe federal government is the exclusive issuer of the US dollar, hence it doesn't need taxes to fund itself. Taxes at the federal level are for the purpose of maintaining the value of the dollar and controlling inflation. The budgetary limits of the federal government are defined by our nation's GDP (production capacity). Local and state governments fund themselves from taxes and the federal government.
Sri Lanka is completely irrelevant. I was simply stating the facts of how our monetary system functions.Yeah.MMT. Ask Sri Lanka how that turns out
Sounds more like YOUR definition.
Sri Lanka is completely irrelevant. I was simply stating the facts of how our monetary system functions.
MMT economists have been very clear all along that a country’s fiscal spending capacity is constrained by the risk of inflation, which is determined by the level of productive capacity (availability of real resources, productivity, skills, logistics, supply chains, etc.) and the level of abusive market power enjoyed by key players in the economy (cartels, exclusive import license holders, shell companies, cross-border traffickers, speculators, corrupt government procurement systems, etc.). Therefore, increasing a country's fiscal policy space must be done via strategic investments to boost production capacity and regulation of abusive market power. Sri Lanka’s economic policy choices (pre-pandemic and Russia-Ukraine war) do not even come close to what MMT economists would have suggested.
How would you know where I've lived?If only we would adopt communism or socialism right? Then we would all be free!!! Free I tell you!
It's funny that only people who dont or havent lived under those types of governments believe that shite.
How would you know where I've lived?
Biologically speaking, both a human zygote and a human embryo is a human organism at an early stage development. If that is not a human being, then perhaps a newborn infant isn't a human being either since that is still an early stage of development. So for the moment let's assume the human organism at any stage of development has value.
You make good points about a woman's body and that a woman should be able to have a say if she should be able to carry that pregnancy to term. Does her sovereignty over her own body trump any rights that the other living human organism in her womb may have? I can respect an answer of yes to that question, but just understand that terminating the pregnancy is ending the life of that human organism. I suppose abortion is much easier to accept if we dehumanize that zygote/embryo/fetus as not being a human/person. It would also be worth considering that pregnancy is a temporary condition and that after it's over, the responsibility for that human organism can be transferred to others. All that being said, I can understand the argument that a woman has sovereignty over her own body.
That begs the question, what exactly makes a human being a human being?If a zygote or embryo dies, it wasn't a human being that died but rather a potential human being. Saying that a zygote or embryo is human and alive, doesn't make it a human being.
