Ok I'm taking you off, putting you on was me just being mad. But I still think not so nicely of you in a sometimes aggresive fashion...
My example was obviously a hypothetical. Life has a bottom line that you don't to talk about. You want to sit around and talk about the beauty of life and give hope a chance. Well there are kids born right now who have no chance, lead crap lives, and will turn into the worst our society can produce. Meanwhile the part that you support can't give much of a rat's ass about them because they're busy passing tax cuts for those poor sob's in the six/seven figure range and up who can barely afford the insurance on their speed boats. That's reality. If there's a woman out there who's pregnant and fears her situation could lead to what I described then why in the heck should she not be allowed to make that decision? To make you feel better with the world? Give me a break.
What course of action will the supporters of this bill in the justice department, congress, white house, etc. have now that federal judges have blocked the ban? Will this eventually go to the supreme court or will it just end at the federal level? In other words where will the fight go next--
Are you a nazi and/or communist by any chance? Give them BREAD!!! You're not being efficient enough!!! Out!!! (syringe sucks baby out of mother and down a baby disposal chute)
life is not a bed of roses...it's just not. it's still protected by law, though! we don't say, "oh..you murdered someone who was poor and unhappy?? oh, well then that's ok." you can attack my argument on other grounds, but this one is asinine. the question turns entirely on whether or not it's a living human being. that's it. if it is...then we protect it...and even Roe v. Wade protects it after 3 months. we don't know the outcomes of people's lives simply by looking at where they started...i'm not about to limit people like that. so where do you limit the decision point, timing? if the poor woman sees her child is starting to turn into that person she feared he would become by age 1, can she still take him out?? your logic turns entirely around projections of the quality of life, from socio-economic standpoints, of a baby that hasn't even been born yet.
Hell my brother and I were some of those kids and we're both still dealing with the effects of growing up that way. It's more like what am I doing so that any kids I have don't grow up the same way. Maybe I should pray, think that will help?
I thought conservatives were supposed to use the evil card before the commie card? You are seriously out of line mister and I'm reporting you to the nearest Fox News affiliate.
It will almost certainly get kicked up the ladder, which may have been the pro-lifers goal to start with. It will probably be kicked up to the Supreme Court eventually, where it is anyone's guess how it will be interpreted given the makeup of this court.
I was merely trying to point out the closeness of your argument to that of a utilitarian government's I.e. this kid doesn't have a chance, so lets not give it to him... seriously you made it out alive and well from a tough upbringing, would you rather not be here at all?
Originally posted by MadMax life is not a bed of roses...it's just not. it's still protected by law, though! we don't say, "oh..you murdered someone who was poor and unhappy?? oh, well then that's ok." you can attack my argument on other grounds, but this one is asinine. the question turns entirely on whether or not it's a living human being. that's it. if it is...then we protect it...and even Roe v. Wade protects it after 3 months. we don't know the outcomes of people's lives simply by looking at where they started...i'm not about to limit people like that. Is abortion illegal now? If you're arguing the basis for rightness is the law then it seems abortion is right. so where do you limit the decision point, timing? if the poor woman sees her child is starting to turn into that person she feared he would become by age 1, can she still take him out?? your logic turns entirely around projections of the quality of life, from socio-economic standpoints, of a baby that hasn't even been born yet. Okay you're equating abortion to murder which legally it is not. Clearly after a child is born it cannot be killed. Abortion is legal, murder is not. This is a very silly argument on your part as a lawyer. You know the law. Anyways, my concern is for the kids that are born and the lives they lead. If you're going to support the end of abortion on the basis of right to life then you should support those children after their born because they should have a right to A life not intertwined with poverty and crime.
I guess you're giving them a ready-made excuse for amounting to nothing, eh? You're born poor. Don't bother to work or try to become an exceptional human being. We at the govt. will steal from those who have decided to work hard so as to transfer to you, who chose not to do so. Why are you so jealous of the "poor SOB's in the six/seven figure" range? Just wondering and no Timing, it is only reality in that twisted mind of yours that is filled with some serious envy and rage. Our society did not produce those folks. Their own choices did.
Well of course one decision is being made by an individual citizen wiithin her rights and the other by a government. Hardly the same thing!
1. i know the law...i know that the law is a joke...i know that there isn't an attorney in the world, including pro-choicers, who feel like Roe v. Wade makes even a bit of sense. the most pro-choice person I've ever met was my constitutional law professor who talked all the time about how poorly written that opinion was, and how it made little logical sense. 2. my point is i disagree with the law...lawyers are allowed to do that, ya know? there were some who disagreed with Plessy v. Ferguson, thank God. i'm telling you i think the distinction between abortion and murder..particularly after the first trimester..is tenuous, at best. 3. I agree with you entirely...I think we need to do a ton better job, both publicly and privately, to assist women who are having babies. You will get absolutely no argument from me on that. Not at all. I'll gladly pay more for that...gladly...I've seen it done very well through private organizations, though admittedly they can't reach as many as I'd like.
You can call them excuses for failure and I call them reasons for failure. If you and I were to agree to a set of variables that would lead children to failure then single parent homes, poverty, etc. would be among those variables. You can scoff and call them excuses for each individual if you want but realistically if we were to determine a success level for all children, financially or what have you, the factors I've mentioned would be featured prominently among the failures. I know this doesn't compute well in your buckle up cowboy take on the world mentality but that's reality. There are reasons why people fail and that doesn't mean some can't overcome those reasons but most will not and the statistics will always bear that out. I do have serious concerns with Americans more concerned with tax cuts to pay the insurance on their speed boats than funding the programs of kids who may grow up to be the burglars they come home to one day. Your whole schpiel on society not producing what we see is ridiculous. If that's the case why aren't there wealthy businessmen quitting their jobs and becoming burglars? Ooooh they made a choice to be rich businessmen and burglars just made a choice to be poor and rob houses for crack money. It's all so clear to me now. Bama it's obvious to me that you'd have preferred to live in the 1800's where the poor relied on charity, the government didn't steal as much of your money, and robber barons roamed the countryside. I urge you to rent Back to the Future continuously until you can build your own flex capacitor to affix to your DeLorean and rejoin your brethern in olden times to live the life you've always dreamed of.
Timing -- I would happily...HAPPILY...give back all of my tax cut if it meant we'd stop that practice...or at least get serious about reducing it. Seriously...tax me at 60% if you want. I'm certain there are a bunch of people who feel the same way. If that would make the difference...do it. There's no price I could put on what I perceive to be a human life.
You may be right on some of these things. The law might be poorly written and it may need to be more specific in terms of the time frame to be consistent with other laws. I certainly understand disagreeing with laws but things tend to themselves out eventually. Granted abortion is so contentious that any working out is going to be extremely slow to make sure there isn't an encroachment on rights. It's definitely not perfect and I have my own problems with it, mainly the changing status of a fetus determined by the mother especially in crimes against her. Like I said though, my concern is for the kids who result. If the conservative moement is going to work so hard to limit abortion I think they need to get on board with supporting those children who are born. More has to be done if abortion isn't an alternative for young women.
