My Cynical and Self Serving 180 degree turn on Abortion

[zendari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

i pay for your military, prisons and all kinds of other junk. Get over it.

The constitution has provisions for a military.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

i pay for your military, prisons and all kinds of other junk. Get over it.

The constitution has provisions for a military.

Hey zendari, I guess you must consider bush a "liberal". Isn't he imposing his "views" on you with his prescription drug plan?

As for the military, doesn't it bother you that bush is using that military in an unnecessary war in Iraq, spending $6 BILLION of your precious money EVERY MONTH?

I have to ask, just what is your idea of the perfect society? A society where it's every man for himself? Kinda' like New Orleans after Katrina?

You must have been very proud of being a "conservative" then. :roll:

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: zendari
When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

There's something called public health. Even if you throw out the concept of compassion or empathy, you must admit that you have a practical self interest in preventing and treating contagious diseases. You don't live in a bubble. Poor people walk in our midst and handle our food (even in fancy restaurants).

That depends on whether the probability of gathering such a disease outweighs the cost of treatment.

And if this is the case, why should we treat noncontagious disease?

You treat people with noncontagious diseases because:

1) People weakened by noncongagious diseases are often weakened enough to act as fantastic vectors for other, transmittable diseases in the population as a whole. Once you are sick, it is very easy to catch a secondary infection - and pass it on.

2) People with untreated diseases or injuries that are sufficiently severe leave the labor pool, sometimes never to re-enter. They must therefore either look to public support, starve to death, or turn to crime. None of these is incredibly attractive, especially as the cost of supporting that person for years (or suffering through any crime) probably far outweighs the cost of the medical treatment. The other option, letting them starve to death on the streets, is actually much less attractive when you consider the problems of removing the potentially contagious bodies and cleanup - even though I know it is the option that appeals to some here. (To Zenardi: we haven't yet perfected the recipe for Soilent Green...).

3) A major issue is that lots of people who could not afford "standard" Western medicine and doctors - the stuff that we have proven works and is safe - will turn to "alternative" medical treatments. This includes realtively benign things like acupuncture, chiropractors, etc., but also unapproved drugs, unlicensed doctors, veterinarians, etc. How can the FDA ban treatments that are all a section of the population could afford? The quality of medical care is very likely to drop universally - every good open marketer knows that competition reduces costs, right? Even when that alternative is a horse vet that now happens to operate on low income people...

Future Shock

 

[shadow9d9]

You voted in 2004 based on an issue that you knew the President wouldn't touch either way? DUMB

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

i pay for your military, prisons and all kinds of other junk. Get over it.

The constitution has provisions for a military.

Hey zendari, I guess you must consider bush a "liberal". Isn't he imposing his "views" on you with his prescription drug plan?

As for the military, doesn't it bother you that bush is using that military in an unnecessary war in Iraq, spending $6 BILLION of your precious money EVERY MONTH?

I have to ask, just what is your idea of the perfect society? A society where it's every man for himself? Kinda' like New Orleans after Katrina?

You must have been very proud of being a "conservative" then. :roll:

The prescription drug plan was a waste. Fighting wars is the purpose of the military.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

Shameful? I don't think so, just because I don't goosestep in time to the latest revelation by dumbyaco doesn't make me shameful. Just because I think the government should help those who cannot help themselves does not make me shameful.
Just because I feel as though a president is responsible for all things happening on his watch doesn't make me shameful. Perhaps the name calling was too much. And please, check your polls, the liberals, dems however you want to label us, are no longer the minority.
The blind support of king dumbya is the minority, and it's falling fast.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

Shameful? I don't think so, just because I don't goosestep in time to the latest revelation by dumbyaco doesn't make me shameful. Just because I think the government should help those who cannot help themselves does not make me shameful.
Just because I feel as though a president is responsible for all things happening on his watch doesn't make me shameful. Perhaps the name calling was too much. And please, check your polls, the liberals, dems however you want to label us, are no longer the minority.
The blind support of king dumbya is the minority, and it's falling fast.

Well, I took a look at this poll and the results are quite dominant! :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

Shameful? I don't think so, just because I don't goosestep in time to the latest revelation by dumbyaco doesn't make me shameful. Just because I think the government should help those who cannot help themselves does not make me shameful.
Just because I feel as though a president is responsible for all things happening on his watch doesn't make me shameful. Perhaps the name calling was too much. And please, check your polls, the liberals, dems however you want to label us, are no longer the minority.
The blind support of king dumbya is the minority, and it's falling fast.

Well, I took a look at this poll and the results are quite dominant! :laugh:

I agree, to lose to a failed President like Bush is shameful.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

Shameful? I don't think so, just because I don't goosestep in time to the latest revelation by dumbyaco doesn't make me shameful. Just because I think the government should help those who cannot help themselves does not make me shameful.
Just because I feel as though a president is responsible for all things happening on his watch doesn't make me shameful. Perhaps the name calling was too much. And please, check your polls, the liberals, dems however you want to label us, are no longer the minority.
The blind support of king dumbya is the minority, and it's falling fast.

Well, I took a look at this poll and the results are quite dominant! :laugh:

How about this for something, well, within the past year or so, to truly reflect the opinion of this idiot. How can somone blindly worship this president? are you so insecure you cannot admit failure or a mistake? Oh, I get it now.
by the way, as of this past week, 65% disapprove of dumbya.
Text

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: fixxxer0

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Kibbo86
Sooo, you're ok with babies being murdered because they come from poor families?

They aren't babies when they're the size of your finger, they're fetuses. Btw, how can you murder something without a working brain? Thats like murdering a plant.

Oh yea, I forgot about my rose bushes in the front yard, that after about 9 months, turn into an baby.

It doesn't matter what something turns into. Throwing away tree seeds doesn't get you fined for killing a tree.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
2) People with untreated diseases or injuries that are sufficiently severe leave the labor pool, sometimes never to re-enter. They must therefore either look to public support, starve to death, or turn to crime. None of these is incredibly attractive, especially as the

Thanks Future Shock. Couldn't have said it better myself. To this I'd like to add that with no public support (as some people would like), there would still be private charities. Dumping all these disabled people onto private charities is a waste of donations if we could have prevented them earlier.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I've been a Pro-Lifer as long as I can remember. Back in 2000, 1996, and less so in 2004, a main deciding factor on how I voted has been based on this one issue. I wasn't pro-life because of any religious reason, I just believe that the baby is not part of the mother's body, but a seperate entity who's life no-one has the right to take.

I still believe this, however, I am throwing my beliefs by the wayside. I'll live with fact that I personally will never request anyone who gets a shot of my seed gets an abortion, and fight hard to prevent.

But for the rest of the world, F it. Just F it. Abort as many babies as possible. I feel that my life and the life of my family and friends will be better with more abortions. Here's my hypothesis.

Most abortions are performed by poor, inner city, single mothers. If they bring that child into the world, the child will just be another burden for the welfare state, there is a high chance that child will become a criminal, even further taxing soceity, and there's a good chance that child will perpetuate the never ending cycle of poorness and just about every aspect of that baby, it's life, it's children's life, it's mother, it's siblings are basically a burden on soceity. A burden that I personally don't feel I should have to pay.

Now I am certain that some of those would be aborted babies, a large number of them probably will break the cycle, rise up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place. But most won't.

There's a great excerpt from the book Freakanomics on Amazon about how the crime rate plummeted by 50% in the 90's right around 20 years after Roe vs Wade. Coincidence?

So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

Don't know if your sarcastic or not, but I agree with you 100% (serious)

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

My few bucks in my wonder woman wallet are of great concern.

Compassionate liberals should be able to pick up the slack.

noone should have the right to take a few bucks out of anyone's wallet other than their own.......it's always easy to be generous with someone else's money.........here's some good views on that subject.........

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr042506.htm

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...
I agree that I cannot definitively state that a fetus is or is not a person...

So, you don't claim a fetus is a person but you're to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?

 

[slatr]

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?
****
If anyone has ever held their own child or in my opinion any baby in their arms then NO they don't think this way.

BIRTH CONTROL

Vasectomy, pill, tubes whatever

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: slatr
Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?
****
If anyone has ever held their own child or in my opinion any baby in their arms then NO they don't think this way.

BIRTH CONTROL

Vasectomy, pill, tubes whatever

Population control is so much easier.

 

[Ferocious]

Bring $ into the picture and it's so amazing how people will so quickly set aside their views.

Actually nearly every strong conservative (or liberal) I personally know is that way so long as it is not too inconvenient (and/or expensive) to be so.