| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2008 12:53:14 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
[ It isn't my fault that your neocon ideas are so broadly presented and suggested with such an astounding lack of compassion that they beg comparison to fascist states real and imagined. |
Are you referring to my freely donating thousands and thousands of dollars to inner city Rescue Missions and the International Red Cross? Is that the "lack of compassion" you are referencing? |
I think it's more that your suggestion of "Mandatory reproduction limits" falls on the ethical spectrum somewhere between Communist China and Dr. Mengele. The fact that your "force them to work for subsistence" brings to mind images of Pol Pot's forced labor camps in Cambodia doesn't help your case either.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:13:20 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think it's more that your suggestion of "Mandatory reproduction limits" falls on the ethical spectrum somewhere between Communist China and Dr. Mengele. The fact that your "force them to work for subsistence" brings to mind images of Pol Pot's forced labor camps in Cambodia doesn't help your case either. |
I do not recall ever promoting mandatory reproduction limits. I do recall supporting terminating/restricting pregnacies. Although you and others may see them as the same, my view is one of responsibility vs. irresponsibility. In other words, if you make them, then you support them. If you can't support them then either don't make them or have your extended family support them. Being responsible for one's actions is what is key here. Rather than the genicide scenario you suggest, I would see an increased burden on those (and their families) who are irresponsible in the first place. Go to a hospital nursery or labor ward and see how many unwed parents are having their 2nd, 3rd, 4th baby by yet another un-named father. That young mother is not going to provide for that child. The liberal platform supports abortion - so use it.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 13:14:49. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:26:55 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not recall ever promoting mandatory reproduction limits. I do recall supporting terminating/restricting pregnacies. |
What's the difference?
Originally posted by Flash:
Go to a hospital nursery or labor ward and see how many unwed parents are having their 2nd, 3rd, 4th baby by yet another un-named father. That young mother is not going to provide for that child. |
Let's see your stats, instead of your ravings.
Originally posted by Flash:
The liberal platform supports abortion - so use it. |
Ah, so the solution is mandatory abortion for repeat pregnancy offenders. And you get your ire up being likened to a fascist? |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:27:14 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think it's more that your suggestion of "Mandatory reproduction limits" falls on the ethical spectrum somewhere between Communist China and Dr. Mengele. The fact that your "force them to work for subsistence" brings to mind images of Pol Pot's forced labor camps in Cambodia doesn't help your case either. |
I do not recall ever promoting mandatory reproduction limits. I do recall supporting terminating/restricting pregnacies. Although you and others may see them as the same, my view is one of responsibility vs. irresponsibility. In other words, if you make them, then you support them. If you can't support them then either don't make them or have your extended family support them. Being responsible for one's actions is what is key here. Rather than the genicide scenario you suggest, I would see an increased burden on those (and their families) who are irresponsible in the first place. Go to a hospital nursery or labor ward and see how many unwed parents are having their 2nd, 3rd, 4th baby by yet another un-named father. That young mother is not going to provide for that child. The liberal platform supports abortion - so use it.
sp edit |
Mandatory abortion/sterilization/contraception based on income is the same thing as a mandatory reproduction limit and given your implications about the "groups" of people who would fall under your proposal, you're dangerously close to promoting eugenics.
If it's not the same, please explain how it's different.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:31:10 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Mandatory abortion/sterilization/contraception based on income |
I never said mandatory abortion. I said either support the children you make or have your family take care of them. If you nor your family can take care of them, then perhaps you should consider the alternatives (like contraception first). But to assume that someone else will take care of them because you are not responsible enough to, is not good for anyone, including the child. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:33:40 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
The liberal platform supports abortion - so use it. |
Ah, so the solution is mandatory abortion for repeat pregnancy offenders. And you get your ire up being likened to a fascist? |
I never said mandatory abortion. I said either support the children you make or have your family take care of them. If you nor your family can take care of them, then perhaps you should consider the alternatives (like contraception first). But to assume that someone else will take care of them because you are not responsible enough to, is not good for anyone, including the child. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:35:02 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I never said mandatory abortion. |
Originally posted by Flash:
I [support] terminating/restricting pregnacies. |
I see, I guess all those women are supposed to voluntarily abort their children when they've had what you think are too many bambinos. Got it. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:42:18 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Mandatory abortion/sterilization/contraception based on income |
I never said mandatory abortion. I said either support the children you make or have your family take care of them. If you nor your family can take care of them, then perhaps you should consider the alternatives (like contraception first). But to assume that someone else will take care of them because you are not responsible enough to, is not good for anyone, including the child. |
You're still promoting laws regulating reproduction.
In essence, your idea is an economics based eugenics program. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:43:09 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I never said mandatory abortion. |
Originally posted by Flash:
I [support] terminating/restricting pregnacies. |
I see, I guess all those women are supposed to voluntarily abort their children when they've had what you think are too many bambinos. Got it. |
No. Again you mis-state my position. It is about responsibility. Being responsible about your choices and decisions. If you decide to have a child, then support it. If you cannot support it, then have your family support it - just many hundreds of other families do. If neither you nor your family can support it, then don't have it. First by not conceiving it and secondly by use of abortion/adoption alternatives. These are responsible choices. The kinds of responsible choices that many people all over the world make every day. There is not a separate set of rules. Just be responsible about your actions and decisions.
Your defense of irresponsibility speaks volumes about the liberal philosophy and illustrates my problems with it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 13:48:39. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:44:05 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're still promoting laws regulating reproduction.
In essence, your idea is an economics based eugenics program. |
A self imposed one. One that millions of "responsible" couples make every day.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 13:47:00. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:59:58 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're still promoting laws regulating reproduction.
In essence, your idea is an economics based eugenics program. |
A self imposed one. One that millions of "responsible" couples make every day. |
That's not what you have suggested. Education about contraception and/or being a responsible parent is one thing, but, legal restrictions are another.
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor.
It's the very definition of Social Darwinism.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 14:03:03. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 02:27:22 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you decide to have a child, then support it. If you cannot support it, then have your family support it - just many hundreds of other families do. If neither you nor your family can support it, then don't have it. First by not conceiving it and secondly by use of abortion/adoption alternatives. |
That's an absurd position. You suggest there is a class of people that are so socially irresponsible that they are willfully chronically unemployed, and that they hustle the system out of tax dollars, and that many of these people have too many children to equitably support. You then suggest that instead of having children, their pregnancies should be avoided, and if not avoided, their children should be aborted or given up for adoption. When challenged, you insist you aren't outlining a legislated solution, but one based on responsibility of the individuals - the very same individuals whom you have just described as socially irresponsible.
Your proposals are competely without merit, not only because they are logistically impossible to realize, but because they are at their base inhumane, high-handed, and callous, and without regard to individual circumstance. Claiming that "it is all liberals' fault", or that a defense of individual rights is the same as a defense of irresponsibility, further erodes your credibility. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 02:42:02 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you decide to have a child, then support it. If you cannot support it, then have your family support it - just many hundreds of other families do. If neither you nor your family can support it, then don't have it. First by not conceiving it and secondly by use of abortion/adoption alternatives. |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's an absurd position. You suggest there is a class of people that are so socially irresponsible that they are willfully chronically unemployed, and that they hustle the system out of tax dollars, and that many of these people have too many children to equitably support. You then suggest that instead of having children, their pregnancies should be avoided, and if not avoided, their children should be aborted or given up for adoption. When challenged, you insist you aren't outlining a legislated solution, but one based on responsibility of the individuals - the very same individuals whom you have just described as socially irresponsible.
Your proposals are competely without merit, not only because they are logistically impossible to realize, but because they are at their base inhumane, high-handed, and callous, and without regard to individual circumstance. Claiming that "it is all liberals' fault", or that a defense of individual rights is the same as a defense of irresponsibility, further erodes your credibility. |
Flash, you're so far out of line I'm in Louis's camp 100%.
And with Spaz!
Think about that.....I never agree with anything with them and love to argue with them on GP, though Louis usually kicks my ass and makes me leave in a huff.
I dunno if you even read or follow what you write, but you say things, then when they're fired back at you, most times directly quoted, then you deny them.
Dude.....ya gotta pay attention.
You DID just state that the same people who are working the system with welfare babies are all of a sudden just supposed to up and get responsible.
Are you serious??????
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 14:44:02. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:04:37 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you serious?????? |
I am very serious.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:14:46 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you decide to have a child, then support it. If you cannot support it, then have your family support it - just many hundreds of other families do. If neither you nor your family can support it, then don't have it. First by not conceiving it and secondly by use of abortion/adoption alternatives. |
That's an absurd position. |
Not only is it not absurd, it is very sound and in fact practiced by many couples world wide. How many couples have 0-4 children with the woman still of child bearing age? How is it that they do not have more? Responsible persons decide when and how many children to have. They use contraception, sometimes elective surgery (male and female), and sometimes abortion. These are responsible choices, many times made economically, by couples who assess their financial ability to raise/care for offspring and decide accordingly. I would even go so far as to suggest that many reading this have in their own families choosen to "restrict" more offspring through one the aforementioned methods. And if they chose to have additional children, then they were prepared to support them. Pretty simple really. Get all huffy if you want - but the facts are the facts. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:23:38 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. Just like responsible couples make every day. I can't afford any more children, so I won't have any more. It escapes me - why this sound reasoning for many couples in this world is somehow evil for others. Poor people don't get a pass on responsibility simply because they are poor. Liberals are the ones who think the underpriviledged are so needy and incapable of helping themselves that the great savior has to come in and resuce them. Conservatives think that each has the ability to care for themselves, they simply need the opportunity and the expectation to be responsible.
Lastly - if they had fewer children, then regardless how poor they were, they would be less poor. Having children is an act of responsibility. Period.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 16:30:34. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:23:47 PM · #417 |
| Nice complete and total dodge, Flash. Argument through obfuscation is your particular specialty. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:23:54 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you serious?????? |
I am very serious. |
Nothing like a little government meddling in people's private business when it's in your interest, eh? Way to uphold those conservative/libertarian principles in the face of personal expediency ... :-( |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:25:42 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. |
Good grief... so do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:33:16 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Saying you’re going to fix the economy or balance the budget by cutting out earmarks is like saying you’re going to end global warming by banning bathroom nightlights." |
Funny that you say that because that's basically what we tell people to do to combat global warming. Look we all know that 99.9% of what comes out of a politican's mouth is grandstanding. Granted, cutting out earmarks isn't going to do much. However, that said it is an insideous practice that needs to go. Unfortunately those who say they are running to clean things up and make "change" are knee deep in the shit. Just par for the course in politics.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 16:35:00.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:33:21 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you serious?????? |
I am very serious. |
Nothing like a little government meddling in people's private business when it's in your interest, eh? Way to uphold those conservative/libertarian principles in the face of personal expediency ... :-( |
The government didn't meddle in the decisions of millions of couples who decided they were done having children. It was a choice of responsibility. The same responsibility each of us should have to our offspring. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:36:11 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. |
Good grief... so do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
There is no legislation that currently encourages millions of couples to decide to no longer have children, yet somehow they responsibly come to that conclusion. Usually based on economics. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 04:44:56 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. |
Good grief... so do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
There is no legislation that currently encourages millions of couples to decide to no longer have children, yet somehow they responsibly come to that conclusion. Usually based on economics. |
But you are not talking about those people. You are talking about the people who don't make the "right decisions" so how would you fix that? By legislation? If not than what?
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 16:54:12.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 05:26:03 PM · #424 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The government didn't meddle in the decisions of millions of couples who decided they were done having children. It was a choice of responsibility. The same responsibility each of us should have to our offspring. |
Due to an "irresposible" choice, or just by plain strange luck, we have a beautiful and wonderful 13 year old daughter.
I would hardly consider us irresponsible, yet we've managed to make irresponsible choices over the years, some of which have cost us an awful lot of money (Read: TEENAGER!!!! LOL!!!!)
The difference is that we have never tried to figure out any way to get tax dollars to pay for it.
So how do you decide, before it's too late, which are the people that are going to act responsibly after their irresponsible choice, and which ones won't?
We openly stated for the entire 16 years that we were together before our little girl came along that we wanted nothing to do with having kids.
Oh, and.....BTW.....there are an awful lot of people who:
A. Do NOT consider terminating a pregnancy as a viable solution to an "irresponsible" choice and/or genuine error.
B. Who genuinely may want to have a child yet circumstances occur in their lives that are out of their control and need help.....i.e. the plant closes unexpectedly, and the couple who's hanging on financially is suddenly plunged into dire financial straits.
Would you have that "extra" child euthanized to take care of the problem? |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 06:26:19 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. |
Good grief... so do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
There is no legislation that currently encourages millions of couples to decide to no longer have children, yet somehow they responsibly come to that conclusion. Usually based on economics. |
Er, uh, ok... so, do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
|
