Steve
Mostly Harmless
Well, actually before OSHA, people were dying from asbestos poisoning, black lung disease and were routinely being maimed, poisoned and/or killed by unnecessarily dangerous working conditions.
Romney Picks Paul Ryan...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
So, just to be clear, you're for bigger government if it's the "bigger government" you want, and you have no problem with the government forcing people to do things as long as they're things you think are okay.
I do like the private adoption broker thing. Selling babies might smack of human trafficking, but that's a very ugly way of characterizing what I think should be called "Profidoption". It's win-win.
To what nonsense are you referring? I'm just trying to keep track of your philosophically inconsistent moral-fest.
Here's the thing for me. This is emotional and it's about one person's sense of morality over another's. Just be honest about that. You're not being logical. There is no logical grounding for this. It's not common sense. It's not philosophically consistent. It's not about big government this or less government that. It's an emotional response and you've made a decision.
And that's fine. I can respect that, if you're honest about it. The nonsense is in trying to dress it up as anything else and pretending that it's a position consistent with... anything... whether you're liberal or conservative. Human trafficking is a simple extension of your stated positions on privatization, adoption and less government. That's where it leads. But then, of course, that's nonsense. Right... but the alternative is BIGGER government. But it's okay because it's bigger government that supports your agenda.
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Cognitive Dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance, who?
No. It's not a joke. I'm Cognitive Dissonance, standing at your door and you can't see me because the conflict between what you want to believe and reality stresses you out!
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Well people still die today at work so I guess they failed.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
To be clear no Im not for bigger Govt Im just trying to stay with in your rules that you gave me of its Govt or we all die.
People like you seem to forget about private charities and other private organizations. Given the choice Im sure if we banned all abortions we could get the pro-life crowd or religious organizations to run non-govt foster care programs. In fact Id expect them to.
BUT staying with in the rules you gave me between killing babies or big govt then yes Id choose life. Thankfully we dont live in a world with just 2 choices. So maybe the knock you hear is on your door
Steve
Mostly Harmless
LOL... you're kidding. Right?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Whoa, nelly. Not my rules. I'm just pointing out that you are okay with bigger government, if that government is enforcing rules and policies with which you agree. You are against it on paper, but when it gets down to brass tacks, you're all good with it as long as the hammer is dropping in your favor.
Not at all. I already said that privatizing adoptions and making them "for profit" sounds like a peachy idea. Of course, you'll have to overcome the human trafficking stigma.
Once again, banning abortions is the opposite of a consistent, less government position. If you were really anti-big government, you'd be PRO-choice (ie, if you don't like abortions, don't have one). You'd also be PRO-gay marriage (ie, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one). You'd also be pro-legalization of cannabis and other drugs. Less government means less government. It means allowing people to choose.
But you're not in favor of less government. You're in favor of more government. But only the government YOU like.
And again, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, provided you are honest about it. But how can you be honest about it with us when I don't believe you're even honest about it to yourself? I 100% believe you when you say that you are for less government. I believe that you literally cannot see the disconnect between your stated positions on government and, in this thread, abortion.
Don't know where these rules are. Can you point out the list of rules to me, because I don't believe I ever laid down any rules.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
No if the govt is here to keep us safe they are failing. I choose to look after myself personally.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Not at all. You said if Im against abortions then I must be for bigger govt run foster programs. That was the rules you gave me one choice or the other. Give just the two choices Ill save the babies. However we dont live in a world with just two choices.
Its a silly argument that only you are making.
Less govt is not the same as no laws. So by your idea if Im for less govt I should be for pro-murder, pro-rape, pro-kidnapping. Im not an anarchist. To say I should be pro-choice well I am I pro-choice in allowing the baby to live and choose what it wants to be when it grows up.
nope Im in favor of allowing all living humans a chance to be born and not murdered out of convenience because its parents were not responsible.
Less govt does not equal no govt. I believe the scope of the Fed is already spelled out in the Constitution. I also believe if a state allows unborn babies to be counted if a mother is murdered the killer is charged with 2 counts of murder then that state has granted unborn babies a right to live. I cant believe anyone thinks killing babies is a good thing. Even more shocking is not getting pregnant is the easiest thing you can do since you dont need to do anything.
You gave me the choice between abortion or bigger govt to take care of the 35000 extra babies made from rape. You stated it like in your world thats the only two choices we have either govt or death. So giving only the two choices I gave you my answer. Thankfully however we have more then just the 2
Steve
Mostly Harmless
What? Really? You can protect yourself from exposure to unnecessary risk? Without safety standards, your employer could literally order you to knowingly risk your life and you'd do it or lose your job. Kind of like these guys in India.
And if you don't think that these things could ever happen in America, you might want to pick up a copy of The Jungle and give it a read.
There are things about which you are perfectly entitled to opinions. But, that government intervention and regulatory control over health and safety standards has improved working conditions for everyone in the country is fact, not opinion, and the body of statistical information is overwhelming. Everything from worker's compensation to statistics regarding on the job injuries and also work related mortality rates are all available. This is just not something that is subject to debate.
People still have dangerous jobs. Being a police officer, firefighter or high altitude welder all have inherent risks. I commend you for volunteering to take those risks. But I'd be appalled if you were asked to risk your life unnecessarily, just because it was cheaper or easier for your employer to take a short cut.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Then be appalled because it happens every day. If you knew how under prepared most police departments are you would never leave your house. Classic example is the LA bank robbery LAPD had to raid a local gun store just to even things up. I know police departments that dont provide bullet resistant vests for officers. Hell I know PDs that dont even provide you with a gun you want it you buy it yourself. So yea Ill look after myself. Just because OSHA says something is safe well that means little to me.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Yeah... no... I pointed out that when unwanted babies are born, they don't magically fall into a loving family that's wanted one forever. That's make believe. They end up in the State foster system. And the consequence of more babies in the system is that an already underfunded, overwhelmed system will break.
Very true. Which is why I offered up an option that would be philosophically consistent with your stated positions: privatized, for-profit adoption agencies free from governmental oversight. Why you aren't jumping on it is beyond me.
You're the one who's actually making it. You state your position on government. You state your position on abortion. You state your position on privatization and for-profit endeavors. A+B+C=D Simple math, really.
Or, if not selling babies, then what? What's your plan? Seriously. Make your case. Let's hear it.
I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about freedom of choice. I'm talking about being allowed to drive without a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I'm talking about being able to drink a beer or smoke a bowl, or choose NOT to do those things. Choice. Less government.
For someone complaining about a false dichotomy, you're quick to jump from less government to complete anarchy awful fast.
But not everyone agrees with you on when something becomes human. I don't personally agree that life begins at conception. There are precedents on both sides, I understand. But the point is open to debate. Personally, I'm for less government.
And again, who's saying "no government?" I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that you are for increasing the size and scope of government when it suits you. You just refuse to admit it. And, frankly, I believe that it's because you just can't see it.
You're right, and the prohibition on abortions is specifically outlined in... wait... which amendment was that?
I actually don't completely disagree with this, but I'm 100% in favor of birth control over unrealistic ideas about abstinence. But you and I agree completely that preventing the pregnancy is the absolute best solution.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but... where do you stand on sex ed and low/no cost birth control for teens?
And so, once again, what's your plan? The only thing I've heard you throw out so far is unicorns farting rainbows and every unwanted child landing magically in the home of a loving, adoptive parent. Okay, the unicorns farting rainbows is me. But the rest was you.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
All kidding aside, that makes my blood boil. But it has little to do with OSHA.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Buy it has to do with the Govt that you think will protect you.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
So you want the Govt to pay for everyones health care yet your not ok with paying to take care of unwanted babies? You solution is lets just kill them? Well I am pretty sure we can come up with something better then that. For instance as Ive already said privately run foster homes. Religious run orphanages. Then Make it easier to adopt in the US I know 2 different people that have adopted kids one from some former USSR country I cant recall which one and one from Korea because it was easier then getting a kid here.
Why am i not jumping on it? Because we dont need to sell babies.
I did
I agree with you on helmets and seat belts its your life you wanna die thats on you. The prob with smoking a bowl or crack or pcp or abortions is your choice effects other people thats when we need to have some rules. So your choice to do what you want stops when it harms others.
Thats what it seemed you were implying that if one is for less govt then they must be for no govt and thats not the case.
But how can you leave an innocent life up for debate Id rather error on the side of caution. If there is any doubt or debate at all then we must side with life. We wont even send someone to jail if there is any doubt as to guilt but were quick to put a innocent baby to death. If were willing to extend a homicide charge against someone for killing an unborn baby then maybe we need to at least have a real debate about this topic. But if you try to talk about it your jumped on for being against womans rights or you dont have a vaginia so you have no say.
What have I suggested needed to be made bigger?
Same one that says murder and kidnapping is illegal.
In a perfect world Id rather leave the choice up to the states to decide
Ive often thought abstinence wont work because people know well if I get pregnant I can always kill it later so lets party. Or in the case of people like my sister if I have another kid thats more money I get from the Govt. We make it too easy for it not to work. Again its not hard to keep from getting pregant I didnt make any babies thru my entire life until I met my wife. I made it thru 4 years of the Marine Corps and a few years as a police officer and had ALOT of "fun" but no babies its simple and its called being responsible and you know what had I made a baby I would have again been "Responsible" and been a father. If your not ready for that responsiblity then dont have sex.
it depeneds on whats being taught. Some of the ultra left Gay lesb bisexual sex stuff really has no reason to be taught in schools. Im not against useful information you cant expect kids to make the right choice without the facts. Now abstinance needs to be a big part of the lesson because it is not just about keeping people from being parents its also about keeping them STD free.
Private run foster systems, streamline the adoption process, better education on prevention, better education for woman that do get pregent about the previous items, stop rewarding people for breeding and make it not a profitable thing to have more babies, hold men accountable for the kids they make, more education for everyone about the need and how to become a foster family.And so, once again, what's your plan? The only thing I've heard you throw out so far is unicorns farting rainbows and every unwanted child landing magically in the home of a loving, adoptive parent. Okay, the unicorns farting rainbows is me. But the rest was you.
Last edited:
I find it fascinating that religious figureheads and moral wannabees talk about sex and the resultant consequences as though we are all to live our lives as monks or priests ... perhaps THAT'S the kind of birth control you're looking for ... homosexual rape of minors rarely results in unwanted babies.
The logical, sensible mind cannot deny that sex is an innate, biological drive that can rarely be abated to the order of nil even at great cost to children. So I would ask what is worse? Ending the life of an as-yet not fully formed human being before social injustice, rape, abuse and neglect potentially take its toll or murdering the innocence of an already-living young person?
But I digress.
I would like a show of hands, please, of each and every user here posting who seeks to end abortion who has in the past or currently does:
Thanks.
The logical, sensible mind cannot deny that sex is an innate, biological drive that can rarely be abated to the order of nil even at great cost to children. So I would ask what is worse? Ending the life of an as-yet not fully formed human being before social injustice, rape, abuse and neglect potentially take its toll or murdering the innocence of an already-living young person?
But I digress.
I would like a show of hands, please, of each and every user here posting who seeks to end abortion who has in the past or currently does:
- mentor a "little brother/sister"
- fosters displaced children
- adopted an unwanted child
- taken in and raised a displaced older child
- even *visited* a children's group home in your lifetime
Thanks.
Sometimes.
I have an adopted sister. My first wife was adopted. Rita-that's the wife-was adopted.
They all have-or had-their own scars and traumas from that. It doesn't necessarily "work." And it's kind of funny-all these "smaller government" people: don't have an abortion, but if you have that baby, you and the baby are on your own.
Makes me wanna :barf:
Okay, let's move forward, it seems some here are hung up on a baby being outside of the womb to be considered an actual human being with actual rights. Now, our current president voted 3 times against the born alive infant protection act. This act mandated that if a baby survived an abortion, that is made it outside of the womb which is apparently for some here what makes a person a person, and is alive, that is breathing, another thing that seems to be a sticking point since breathing through the umbilical cord doesn't seem to count, then he voted against giving life saving treatment to a human being, according to the definition provided by some here on martialtalk. Yeah, this is a nice guy all right.
It is also strange to me that in the 21st century we are still clinging to stone age levels of science to determine when a baby is actually a human being. That is the really funny part as educated people argue that a baby, isn't a baby, until it clears the womb. The stone age scientists would agree with you.
Sorry, no one has ever said these women are on their own. Some of us want private groups to do more, and they often do, when the government doesn't put them out of business, as in the catholic church ending adoption services because of government mandates on who they can arrange adoptions for. Their are lots of religious groups who help unwed mothers and their children, so don't try to say we don't want these women to get help.
It is also strange to me that in the 21st century we are still clinging to stone age levels of science to determine when a baby is actually a human being. That is the really funny part as educated people argue that a baby, isn't a baby, until it clears the womb. The stone age scientists would agree with you.
Sorry, no one has ever said these women are on their own. Some of us want private groups to do more, and they often do, when the government doesn't put them out of business, as in the catholic church ending adoption services because of government mandates on who they can arrange adoptions for. Their are lots of religious groups who help unwed mothers and their children, so don't try to say we don't want these women to get help.
Scientifically speaking, in the 21st century sense, there is no clear line between "fetus" and "baby," except for the fact that babies are born. If it's in the womb, it's a fetus or an embryo-the only really clear line that there is: it's an embryo until 9 weeks, then it's a fetus. It's a fetus until it's born-however that takes place. It may be a fetus after it's removed from the womb-if it's not viable, as in, cannot live outside the womb. This line, of course, changes all the time as medical science advances, the line of viability moves back. Generally, viability is equated with ability to breathe air (and a fetus doesn't "breathe" through the umbilical cord; it derives oxygen from the mother's bloodstream) and, consequently, lung development-something I have more than a little experience with. Interestingly, my son was nearly as premature as I was, and viability wasn't nearly the issue for him that it was for me-in fact, he was ready to go home days before his mom was.
Generally, though, a fetus can't survive if expelled from the womb before around 20 weeks-this actually equates with lung development-call it a miscarriage or an abortion, it never got to be a "baby," because it never breathed.
In any case, billi, 21st century science, and "stone age" science just aren't that far apart on this issue, so far-as far as viability goes, a fetus is a baby as long as the parents say it is, and the doctors can make it one, pretty much-and, of course, the baby/fetus's will to live-something I also have more than a little experience with......
It is also funny that the same people here on the study who are willing to allow a death sentence performed on an unborn baby, for as little reason that it may have to be raised in an orphanage, are more than willing to spend tax dollars to keep the theater killer, or the norway killer alive, living in a prison environment. Priorities are way mixed up on that.
