Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abort abortion ...

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 12:34:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
... without overturning Roe vs. Wade!

I think we could significantly reduce abortions -- something I hope both sides agree would be a GoodThing(tm) -- by ponying up dough. The question, to me, is whether the conservatives (I'm a liberal atheist who happens to be anti-abortion) would consider a touch of "evil socialism" as a lesser evil than allowing people to kill unborn children.

The idea is that if a mother decides she is unprepared for her pregnancy, to offer her full financial support. That is, free health care pre- and post-natal, not having to worry about bills or anything, and the child would be adopted out when medically feasible.

I think if a mother didn't have to worry about her child's well being or losing work and not being able to pay bills as her pregnancy grows, then it wouldn't feel like a "You're screwed if you come to full term and have this baby!" gun-to-her-head choice, and not aborting might be an easier decision, knowing she and her baby would be taken care of.

So, you "traditional" pro-lifers -- that is, the religious anti-abortionists -- I know you loathe social programs like welfare, but isn't it a lesser evil in a situation like this?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 12:37:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ya'll know what happened the last time far-right nuts and socialists agreed right?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, I'd rather not have the welfare and have the baby put up for adoption. Perhaps a welfare for the cost of having the baby, but I'd have to research it more to get to a decisive answer.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 12:46:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I cannot be anti abortion with the conservatives unless they offer:

- Full financial assistance to mother.
- Childcare.
- Free education.
- Better adoption system.

The funny thing is, socialists offer most of those anyway.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 12:47:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 12:37:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ya'll know what happened the last time far-right nuts and socialists agreed right?

I know, David HasselHoff *Shudders*
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 1:51:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh and I wasn't intending this as permanent welfare, just for the term of the pregnancy and a recovery time afterward until the child is adopted, maybe a total of one year or so (though whomever adopts the child should be eased into adoption with publicly-funded child support + free full medical coverage for that child until he/she becomes an adult).

Which is the lesser of two evils, conservatives? Abortion or socialism?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:05:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 1:51:34 PM, PervRat wrote:
Oh and I wasn't intending this as permanent welfare, just for the term of the pregnancy and a recovery time afterward until the child is adopted, maybe a total of one year or so (though whomever adopts the child should be eased into adoption with publicly-funded child support + free full medical coverage for that child until he/she becomes an adult).

Which is the lesser of two evils, conservatives? Abortion or socialism?

If I were to go by Fox News, conservatives definitely find socialism to be worse.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:45:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 1:51:34 PM, PervRat wrote:
Oh and I wasn't intending this as permanent welfare, just for the term of the pregnancy and a recovery time afterward until the child is adopted, maybe a total of one year or so (though whomever adopts the child should be eased into adoption with publicly-funded child support + free full medical coverage for that child until he/she becomes an adult).

Which is the lesser of two evils, conservatives? Abortion or socialism?

How would this welfare be funded?
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:45:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The usual way? Sacrifice the productive by moonlight?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 3:03:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It would save a lot more lives with a lot less risk than waging a holy war on Muslim states we don't like, with a lot more real benefits.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 3:16:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not if one pays attention to the hidden cost (all our freedom, all economic efficiency)...

Governments are not competent to run a changing economy-- no method of calculation :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 6:52:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is it possible, then, for some women to abuse the system; i.e., an extremely impoverished 18 y.o. just wanting to get knocked up so that she may live in temporary prosperity?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 7:13:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No more than a corporation would abuse a government bailout to fund multi-million dollar bonuses to its executives who drove it into the ground ... in fact, it would be far, far less of a risk when you weigh maybe $20,000 to the tens of millions squandered by executives who freely get multi-million dollar wellfare with the blessings of the right.

Steal from the poor to feed the rich! Yay for the anti-Robin Hoods!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:10:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 7:13:32 PM, PervRat wrote:
No more than a corporation would abuse a government bailout to fund multi-million dollar bonuses
In other words, extreme abuse (and yes, that's government's fault too, to go having bailouts. You shouldn't appeal to a bailout to justify welfare when the people you're trying to justify welfare to don't like the bailout either).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:13:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sure they do, the people who hate welfare for people are the people whose campaigns are funded by these mega-corporations.

They think tax breaks and less regulations would have saved these companies from behaving so irresponsibly.

8 years of tax breaks to the wealthy and the slashing of regulations and monitoring, in fact, are what allowed these companies to operate on their house of cards.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:19:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 9:13:57 PM, PervRat wrote:
Sure they do, the people who hate welfare for people are the people whose campaigns are funded by these mega-corporations.
I AM A PERSON WHO HATES WELFARE. MY CAMPAIGN IS NOT FUNDED BY RECIPIENTS OF THE BAILOUT. (it's not even funded at all yet lol).


They think tax breaks and less regulations would have saved these companies from behaving so irresponsibly.
It would have either done that-- or destroyed them before they grew very large.


8 years of tax breaks to the wealthy and the slashing of regulations and monitoring, in fact, are what allowed these companies to operate on their house of cards.
A house of cards BUILT by GOVERNMENT CREDIT (these are banks, they receive loans directly from the federal reserve, and are insured by FDIC) can be caused by neither "tax breaks" nor by "Slashing regulations." Government credit IS a regulation. At best, one could argue that other regulations kept that regulation partially in check-- which means that the absence of regulation entirely is still a superior result :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:30:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, lack of regulation was allowing these mortgage companies to make loans to people without checking their income, and employers to dump workers leaving them suddenly stuck in their mortgage with zero means or capability of making their obligations because their employer failed their obligations to their company.

Persecuting and dumping the full load and suffering on the poor, once again. Do you think the executives, even the ousted ones, of these failed corporations are suffering? Did the customers who lost a lot or the employees who lost their retirement, income and everything they had to these companies fare as well?

That's completely fair to you ... the wealthy get to keep their wealth, the poor starve and die to pay for it all. No responsibilty for the damage they cause. How many of the employees have been able to find work? How many became so despondent at not being able to provide for their families because their employers failed them and have gone on to commit suicide or take on crime as a less risky life than gambling your life on an employer?

That, sir, is social damage caused by capitalistic greed. Congratulations, Capitalism that pays slave wages begets slave despondency.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:41:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 9:30:21 PM, PervRat wrote:
No, lack of regulation was allowing these mortgage companies to make loans to people without checking their income
Where do they get the money in order to loan it?
From the government, or the banks, who got it from the government, or depositors whose deposits were insured by the government.

and employers to dump workers leaving them suddenly stuck in their mortgage with zero means or capability of making their obligations because their employer failed their obligations to their company.
Or because their company was failed by an external company-- or crippled by a tax or other regulation, perhaps one that suddenly didn't apply to a different company-- or legacy costs-- etc.


Persecuting and dumping the full load and suffering on the poor, once again. Do you think the executives, even the ousted ones, of these failed corporations are suffering?
Presumably, they saved their salary from back when they WEREN'T failing. They were, unlike the poor, highly productive at some point :).


That's completely fair to you ... the wealthy get to keep their wealth, the poor starve and die to pay for it all.
No, it was paid for before. The poor starve because that is what happens when one produces nothing needed and one does not farm or hunt.


That, sir, is social damage caused by capitalistic greed.
No, it is "social damage" that existed at 100% levels in the absence of capitalist greed. Capitalist greed cannot be blamed for failing to solve 100% of all problems, when nothing does or can, especially considering how capitalist greed is not even permitted to work ("slashing regulations" by the way has nothing in common with our government's actions-- The Bush administration added 42 substantial regulations in the "midnight hours" alone. Read the whole Federal Register, to understand a small fraction of the regulations in this country-- betcha can't do it, the 2008 regulations alone fill 80,700 pages.

It's really odd, though, how you repeat a point I rebut, ignoring the rebuttal, happens almost every time you post.

Congratulations, Capitalism that pays slave wages begets slave despondency.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 9:42:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Congratulations, Capitalism that pays slave wages begets slave despondency.
There is no such thing as "slave wages." The very words are a contradiction in terms.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 10:25:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hardly. Slave wages are wages insufficient to live on even when you work full time.

Poverty-level wages (something like below $25,000 with the cost of living these days) are actually below the equivelant of what slaves received in housing and food back in "the day."
burnbird14
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 10:39:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 10:25:37 PM, PervRat wrote:
Hardly. Slave wages are wages insufficient to live on even when you work full time.

Poverty-level wages (something like below $25,000 with the cost of living these days) are actually below the equivelant of what slaves received in housing and food back in "the day."
OOOOOOOOOH, Ragnar just got p0wned! :D *highfives Rat*
brycef
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 11:50:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm going to go give high fives to all the girls in the waiting room at the local abortion clinic now. They're making the right choice.