So the OP doesn't want this thread to be about the thread title? In that case, I'm requesting that a mod change the title. If they feel like it. This thread has little to do with how Modern Liberals Think. It probably never did, if the OP is "privately" encouraging you (and how convenient that is). As for you and your claim of "Liberal bullying," bull ****. You are the bully here. It is you are who has turned this into yet another abortion thread. What you deserve, Mr. Giddyup, is to return to my ignore list. Good bye. The rest of you, have fun wasting your time. Why I bother posting down here is becoming a continuing mystery to me. It's primarily crap dumped upon crap. Those who should know better, including me, fall for the same garbage over and over again, and the same people post crap threads over and over again. There is little real interest in a discussion, except from a few, unless it is about the same tired topics, over and over and over again. A pity. The people who have a real interest in having a discussion about an alleged thread topic, get nothing but bull **** in return for their efforts. The trolls cackle gleefully, while a handful of us look on in dismay. What pathetic creatures some of you are.
deckard, I don't think you'd know a discussion if it hit you in the face. This has been a discussion. I know you are disappointed in that it hasn't led to my caving in on my stance. That is the only discussion you are interested in seeing. Take your ball and go home, please....
So in the assault I described, your objection would be to the loss of choice rather than the loss of a child... really?
Again, in the assault you described, I wouldn't be concerned at all about the fetus as it couldn't possibly be mine. Your hypothetical might be more valid if there were teams of abortionists giving unwilling women abortions they don't want, as it is, your fiction is worthy of and that's about it.
It's sad that people who fervently believe in the sanctity of 'unborn children' don't seem to have the same level of concern with children who are already here.
I am a conservative-moderate. I have a question for liberal posters. 1.) What social programs are absolutely necessary? 2.) How should they be paid for? In reference to the second question, should they be paid for by cuts to programs, and if so, which; or higher taxes, on who?; or a combination; or even some other way. Also, WHY do you think these social programs should continue? Can anyone link me to any studies on the effects (negative or positive) associated with these programs?
Three dodges, you're out! Put aside the reality of your situation. I'm trying to understand which loss would be first in your heart and mind: the loss of choice or the loss of child. Since you are falling over in a backwards retreat trying to find ways not to answer the question and criticizing the question, I think I know the answer.
In fact, it is hypocritical of staunch proponents of property rights to deny the right over the only piece of property you truly own outright via birth; your own body.
Social programs that are necessary in a modern society: 1) Universal health care 2) Social Security Should be paid for by contributions from all citizens. Perhaps forgoing a war or two every other decade to compensate. In respect to "why", because it has been proven to produce benefits both in quality of life, overall cost reductions and quality of service. See Germany as one example (and the model we should be utilizing in this country). Studies are readily accessible via google. See health care rankings by nation.
Do you want socialized health care? Or just affordable care for everyone? Meaning, do you want health care paid for by the state, or just regulations that ensure that it is affordable? In Germany they have a system that offers health care to the those who fall below a certain income threshold, and an affordable private counterpart. I am unfamiliar with their system, but I understand that non-profits as well as employer-employee contributions pay for the majority. Everyone receives this basic level of insurance, and then you can opt for more coverage at a higher premium...is that correct? As of 2004, 77% of health insurance was covered by Germany's government. I am trying to find the number for America if anyone can provide it for me... It's strange to me that I rarely hear anyone advocate on behalf of the Constitutional Right to Life. The right to the Pursuit of Happiness has been used to justify private property rights (along wit the 5th amendment).
That's the thing, though. It doesn't make a **** of difference what my personal views are. What matters are the views and beliefs of the woman making the choice. In your hypothetical, I would be more concerned with the choice, the choice which would belong to my wife. I would defend her choice with my life and, if there were any possible way for me to kill the people in your hypothetical, I would (given that they have broken into my abode and are threatening my wife with a scalpel). Then, I would take my wife to the abortion clinic to have the fetus aborted, if that is what she wanted done with it.
The same party that tends to be filled with pro-lifers--- Pro-life! (minus early childhood, food, electricity, housing, health and legal services).
