^^ check out ron paul on that... I love all of the "no provisions."

He's my early favorite.

10/17/2007 3:16:55 PM

it is refreshing. How did ones self responsiblity become everyone's problem? Its the end of an empire.

10/17/2007 4:02:58 PM

^i don't know. i want to say it was called the beginning of society.

10/17/2007 6:26:31 PM

^or communism. Depending how you look at it. When you expect the govt to provide you with everything, id lean more towards the commy.

10/18/2007 9:28:01 AM

i mean hell why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's military protection? if they had worked hard enough, they could have paid the private militias to protect them, or raised an army themselves.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2007 10:03:33 AM

you are right sarijoul

i dont know how the hell i even breathe without some kind of assistance from the federal government

i think i deserve to be transported to and from the bathroom on some mexican's back everytime i need to drop a shit or piss and the federal government should pay for that as well

10/18/2007 10:09:55 AM

rights are what society says they are.

and i'll see your 9th and 10th amendments and raise you a "general welfare" (right to do so), and elastic clause (limits placed on them in executing it).

10/18/2007 10:10:07 AM

i'm just saying there's some middle ground between communism and complete libertarianism. why the same people who claim that health care is a personal responsibility that shouldn't be a burden on everyone else, whereas military protection is obviously something everyone should pay for is beyond me.

it's obvious that both benefit from some pooling of resources at the state and/or federal level.

as far as health care goes, every other modern nation has guaranteed health care for everyone. and it doesn't seem like they're suffering too much. and the beauty of it is that we can learn from all those other countries that have tried it before.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2007 10:16:44 AM

if the general population is healthier as a result of universal healthcare, they will be more productive, ultimately generating more tax dollars.

10/18/2007 10:35:38 AM

^the proof is the for the other. Where is our fattest most unhealthy pop? Yeah, the ones that already get "free" healthcare. When you take away the negatives for treating yourself poorly and force that burden onto others...that is just wrong.

Its much easier for a diabetic to simply take another pill than ot diet and exercise. Esp, when you dont have to pay for your health ins or the fucking meds. But what do i know, im only in healthcare.

I guess you missed the recent article about the brits pulling thier own teeth bc they cant get in to see a dentist?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/15/england.dentists/index.html

You can give and give, and their will always be those who will need more and more, simply bc they wont lift a finger to help themselves.

10/18/2007 12:16:10 PM

Brits not getting into Dentists doesn't have shit to do with socialized healthcare.

10/18/2007 12:30:27 PM

"England has a two-tier dental care system with some dentists offering publicly subsidized treatment through the National Health Service and others performing more expensive private work."

great point

10/18/2007 12:49:04 PM

no wonder everyone i know that is english has a fucked up grill; although i think the problem in england is more related to supply side rather than demand.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : l]

10/18/2007 12:51:20 PM

^and I wonder why there isnt an adequate supply? hahah

Here is a great read. She is a nut, but she is dead on with this piece:

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=208

10/18/2007 12:57:04 PM

Quote :

"After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor."

AHAHAHA, good work, ann. you might have an adam's apple and be batshit insane, but you pegged that one

10/20/2007 9:31:38 PM

except not really

10/20/2007 9:32:40 PM

except really

10/20/2007 9:37:03 PM

oh, okay

10/20/2007 9:42:45 PM

I'm glad we agree

10/20/2007 9:51:49 PM

It's easy to say it's not a right when you've always been provided for.

Once you're in poverty, it's hard to claw your way out. Coming from decent and often fortunate backgrounds, libertarians (and other closet sociopaths) have no reason to support health care as a right.

At any rate, I find it humorous that so many right-to-life anti-abortion maniacs stop caring about human life the second it pops out of a vagina. Really makes you wonder what the motivation is behind opposing abortion (clearly it's not a concern for human life -- more-so it's a case of wanting to impose "poetic justice" on that party girl by forcing her to settle down and "be responsible").

10/20/2007 10:01:37 PM

look, if the gov't didn't do things that made health care so fucking expensive, then the poor would likely be able to afford it. Whether or not I've "had my own health care provided for me" doesn't change the fact that healthcare is NOT an enumerated basic right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Period. End of story. If you want to argue that fact, take it up w/ the Constitution.

And your bullshit about anti-abortionists not caring after birth is trite and stupid. It's not the job of anyone other than the parent to provide for their kids. It is however, the right of the gov't to ensure that basic rights, such as the right to life, are protected. Abortion, as far as pro-lifers, is an attack on that basic human right, so that's how they feel.

If you would like to go cry some crocodile tears about poor little babies whose mommies and daddies care more about the rims on their cars than their children, then be my guest, go waste your money on those kids. But don't waste my money on little pricks who will never appreciate what I had to do to earn that money, namely WORK.

Of course, then again, you ignore the fact that most abortions are NOT given to poor people. They are given to rich little daddy's girls so as to avoid the embarrassment of having a knocked up daughter. Thus, the kid would have likely been well provided for. But of course, that doesn't fit with your fucked up agenda, so we can't look at it from that perspective, can we?

And hey, maybe if that "party girl" had actually been responsible and used birth control or a condom, maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't need to contemplate murdering someone to save herself some embarrassment and discomfort. WAAAAAAAAAAAH, I should feel sorry for her, shouldn't I?

10/20/2007 10:20:22 PM

Quote :

"If you would like to go cry some crocodile tears about poor little babies whose mommies and daddies care more about the rims on their cars than their children, then be my guest, go waste your money on those kids."

the kids who would benefit from the expansion of SCHIP aren't poor little babies whose mommies and daddies care more about rims on their cars than their children, but of course, that doesn't fit with your fucked up agenda, so we can't look at it from that perspective, can we?

10/20/2007 10:27:08 PM

Quote :

"look, if the gov't didn't do things that made health care so fucking expensive, then the poor would likely be able to afford it."

This has nothing to do with whether or not the poor should be provided for (or, at least, the children of the poor).

Quote :

"Whether or not I've "had my own health care provided for me" doesn't change the fact that healthcare is NOT an enumerated basic right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Period. End of story. If you want to argue that fact, take it up w/ the Constitution."

The purpose of the debate is to establish if we should consider it a right or not. Whether we currently consider it a right or not is irrelevant to such an undertaking.

Quote :

"And your bullshit about anti-abortionists not caring after birth is trite and stupid. It's not the job of anyone other than the parent to provide for their kids. It is however, the right of the gov't to ensure that basic rights, such as the right to life, are protected. Abortion, as far as pro-lifers, is an attack on that basic human right, so that's how they feel. If you would like to go cry some crocodile tears about poor little babies whose mommies and daddies care more about the rims on their cars than their children, then be my guest, go waste your money on those kids. But don't waste my money on little pricks who will never appreciate what I had to do to earn that money, namely WORK."

If the parents of some kids can't afford to, or choose not to provide for the kids' care, why should we punish the kids for it? They have nothing to do with it, and no amount of choice or determination on their parts can opt them out of their parents' bad decisions. It seems that, in these cases, it should be society's job to provide (if the society is an enlightened, compassionate one). Making children suffer for their parents' shortcomings is cruel behavior because you want to keep a small percentage more of your paycheck.

Not only do you not care about those children who aren't provided for, but you're angry at them. Why is it their fault that they're born into bad circumstances? And who says they'll never appreciate what you did? What the hell is it you do anyway that requires work to be in all caps? The majority of Americans that get so pissed over getting taxed for their WORK are people that have trivial, easy office jobs (that add little to no actual value to society) and are angry because they don't get an extra few hundred bucks to blow on Showtime and iPods.

Quote :

"Of course, then again, you ignore the fact that most abortions are NOT given to poor people. They are given to rich little daddy's girls so as to avoid the embarrassment of having a knocked up daughter. Thus, the kid would have likely been well provided for. But of course, that doesn't fit with your fucked up agenda, so we can't look at it from that perspective, can we?"

What kind of argument is this? Of course the poor get abortions.

[Edited on October 20, 2007 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2007 10:31:13 PM

Quote :

"This has nothing to do with whether or not the poor should be provided for (or, at least, the children of the poor)."

Actually, it has everything to do with it, because if the gov't wouldn't drive up the prices on account of pure nonsense, then the poor could provide for themselves...

Quote :

"The purpose of the debate is to establish if we should consider it a right or not. Whether we currently consider it a right or not is irrelevant to such an undertaking. "

Well, then, read the Constitution. It says it isn't a right. It says it something to be left up the states. Again, end of thread.

Quote :

"If the parents of some kids can't afford to, or choose not to provide for the kids' care, why should we punish the kids for it?"

If the parents don't give a damn about their kids, then why the fuck should we? Why should everyone else be punished due to the uselessness of the parent? And, maybe even more importantly, why the hell should we perpetuate their useless genes?

Like I said before, If you care so much about those wastes of proteins and amino acids and their kids, then open up your wallet and be a sucker. But leave my wallet alone.

Quote :

"it should be society's job to provide"

ABSOLUTELY NOT. If a man shall not work, then he shall not eat. It applied then, it should apply now. Making children suffer for their parent's shortcomings should spur the parent into action. If not, then it's clear those genes were defective, and they should be purged via the inaction of their useless parents.

Quote :

"Not only do you not care about those children who aren't provided for, but you're angry at them."

Hell yes I'm angry, because they don't give a fuck about how hard other people work. They sit there and expect to be given everything on a silver platter, just like their parents did. And then they will go out and suck off the teat of the productive and have kids who will do the same. Why should I pity them?

Quote :

"The majority of Americans that get so pissed over getting taxed for their WORK are people that have trivial, easy office jobs (that add little to no actual value to society) and are angry because they don't get an extra few hundred bucks to blow on Showtime and iPods."

They should be pissed. Any time that money is stolen from the working and given to the lazy, the worker should be mad, no matter what his job is. And, even if he were pissed that he couldn't blow it on an iPod, he is still right to be pissed, because if it weren't for the gov't playing Robin Hood, he could buy his iPod, and maybe even help that poor little kid by giving to a charity which would actually spend the money wisely, instead of having his money stolen by an organization that buys 100 dollar toilet seats. And, for the record, my job is hardly an "office job," but if you'd like to keep throwing out baseless accusations, be my guest.

Quote :

"What kind of argument is this? Of course the poor get abortions."

If they can afford to get an abortion, then what need do they have of insurance for any other medical care? I find it hard to believe that abortions are given out free of charge except by the most unscrupulous of folks, so...

10/20/2007 11:08:22 PM

did a poor, uninsured aborted fetus fuck your dad or something. jesus christ. you're one bitter motherfucker

[Edited on October 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .,]

10/20/2007 11:13:36 PM

nope. but plenty more are fucking me over, taking more than half of my hard work from me every day, so I guess I have a right to be bitter.

10/20/2007 11:23:32 PM

How is anyone taking more than half or your hard work? You're doing something wrong.

10/20/2007 11:27:38 PM

prostitution, maybe?

10/20/2007 11:28:34 PM

So let's be clear on this.

aaronburro, you are pro-life, but once the children are born, you think that they should be killed if their parents' genes are determined to be "defective"?

Am I understanding you correctly?

10/20/2007 11:32:00 PM

Quote :

"Actually, it has everything to do with it, because if the gov't wouldn't drive up the prices on account of pure nonsense, then the poor could provide for themselves... "

This misses the point. Are you saying that because the government makes systematic mistakes, that the poor shouldn't be provided for? This is not an argument.

Quote :

"Well, then, read the Constitution. It says it isn't a right. It says it something to be left up the states. Again, end of thread. "

You missed the point. I assume the interesting question here is about whether it SHOULD be considered a right. In questions of "should" investigating current practices bears no relevance.

Quote :

"If the parents don't give a damn about their kids, then why the fuck should we?"

Because it's humane?

Quote :

"Why should everyone else be punished due to the uselessness of the parent? And, maybe even more importantly, why the hell should we perpetuate their useless genes?"

I don't think there's much of a causal link between poor genes and lower socio-economic status. If you're arguing that somebody's economic status is caused by their poor genes, you have a lot of research to do. Beyond that, if there IS a causal link between them, it means that poor people can't help it (it's genetically determined). Are you suggesting we simply let all the "bad genes" die out? Should we stop helping those with mental disabilities too?

Quote :

"Like I said before, If you care so much about those wastes of proteins and amino acids and their kids, then open up your wallet and be a sucker. But leave my wallet alone."

I don't really consider everybody who is unable to properly provide for themselves at any given moment (whether an adult down on their luck or the child of such an adult) as a waste of protein, as you put it. I'm not really sure how you've become so bitter about everything, or so callous as to think that your wallet should remain untouched by any concern for the poor. It really makes me happy at night that people like you get taxed, for any reason at all. I know that's probably nasty of me, but the rage you inflict upon yourself over the subject is the best form of judgment for your un-Christian, barbaric attitude (not that the two go hand-in-hand, but in this case they do, ironically).

Quote :

"ABSOLUTELY NOT. If a man shall not work, then he shall not eat. It applied then, it should apply now. Making children suffer for their parent's shortcomings should spur the parent into action. If not, then it's clear those genes were defective, and they should be purged via the inaction of their useless parents."

I don't understand this argument from ANY human perspective, but I really hope you don't claim to be a Christian.

Quote :

"Hell yes I'm angry, because they don't give a fuck about how hard other people work. They sit there and expect to be given everything on a silver platter, just like their parents did. And then they will go out and suck off the teat of the productive and have kids who will do the same. Why should I pity them?"

What exactly do you do for a living that's so back-breaking? I'm just curious.

Quote :

"They should be pissed. Any time that money is stolen from the working and given to the lazy, the worker should be mad, no matter what his job is. And, even if he were pissed that he couldn't blow it on an iPod, he is still right to be pissed, because if it weren't for the gov't playing Robin Hood, he could buy his iPod, and maybe even help that poor little kid by giving to a charity which would actually spend the money wisely, instead of having his money stolen by an organization that buys 100 dollar toilet seats. And, for the record, my job is hardly an "office job," but if you'd like to keep throwing out baseless accusations, be my guest."

So what is it that you do? I'm simply curious -- it seems like you dig ditches and barely get by month to month, to warrant such intense rage.

10/21/2007 4:56:56 AM

So what is the difference between someone robbing you at gun point to pay for their bad teeth and someone getting the government to rob you at gun point to pay for their teeth?

10/21/2007 12:16:39 PM

"Really makes you wonder what the motivation is behind opposing abortion"

I think I found it.

Quote :

"Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence. The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness." Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life." The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue. Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings. "

10/21/2007 12:50:06 PM

I heard Hillary wants to open up the Federal Health Care Plan for everyone.....I doubt it will happen and I hope it doesnt(as a Fed worker)

10/21/2007 1:04:49 PM

^^ If having a child is a death sentence to a woman who doesn't want one, why is she having sex? It's not like childbirth is some magical mystery side effect that we don't understand how it happens.

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 1:05 PM. Reason : hjfhgj]

10/21/2007 1:04:53 PM

Quote :

"So what is the difference between someone robbing you at gun point to pay for their bad teeth and someone getting the government to rob you at gun point to pay for their teeth?"

Do you realize at all why this is a horrible question that's not at all on topic? I'm actually curious.

Quote :

"^^ If having a child is a death sentence to a woman who doesn't want one, why is she having sex? It's not like childbirth is some magical mystery side effect that we don't understand how it happens."

Of course it's not some magical mystery -- that's why we have methods of prevention. It's also why everybody who roughly understands how human consciousness works doesn't think that the abortion of a blastocyst is murder. There's no mystery that without a central nervous system, there's no "human life" to speak of.

She's having sex because it's a pleasurable activity that constitutes part of a normal, healthy human life. We have the technology now to allow women the ability that men have had since the beginning of the species -- the ability to enjoy sex without being saddled with having a child. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit with your sensibilities, and I'm equally sorry that some people have a guilt-free, happy life while this is denied to you.

However, denying such a thing to others because you deny it to yourself is beyond irresponsible -- it's reprehensible. Women deserve sexual equality -- education about the nature of pregnancy and reproduction coupled with technology has allowed this to happen. Only superstition stands in the way of progress.

10/21/2007 2:02:42 PM

Quote :

"If having a child is a death sentence to a woman who doesn't want one, why is she having sex?"

yeah people act like making children is some magical task and the future of human society counts on it. Women can make more babies. Especially before the baby is viable outside the womb i consider a fetus just an extension of the woman's body.

10/21/2007 3:45:43 PM

Quote :

"Do you realize at all why this is a horrible question that's not at all on topic? I'm actually curious."

No it's a perfectly legitimate question. If you are saying that a person has a right to health CARE regardless of their ability to pay or compensate the provider of that care, then you are saying that a person has the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. Normaly we call the taking by force of someone else time or property theft, but somehow, when we get the government to do it for us, it's no longer theft. So I ask you again, what is the moral difference between someone mugging you for their medical bill and them just getting the government to force you to pay their bill? Why get the government involved at all? It's just a middle man who will drive up the cost (the middle man needs his cut too), why not just give all the poor people who can't afford to pay their medical bills the legal power to just charge it directly to any person who makes more than 25k per year.

Quote :

"She's having sex because it's a pleasurable activity that constitutes part of a normal, healthy human life. We have the technology now to allow women the ability that men have had since the beginning of the species -- the ability to enjoy sex without being saddled with having a child. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit with your sensibilities, and I'm equally sorry that some people have a guilt-free, happy life while this is denied to you. "

There is absolutely nothing wrong about anything you have described. My problem is not accepting the consequences of the choices made. Yes, sex is a normal and healthy part of life, but it's also the part of life that makes babies. It's wonderful that we have technology to help prevent that from happening, but it's not perfect and that is a well known fact. Chosing to have sex is choosing to take the risk that those technologies will fail and you will create a child. If you are not prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, you should not be engaging in those actions. If I'm swinging a loaded gun around with the safety on and it "accidently" goes off and kills someone, I'm still on the hook for murder, why then should I not be on the hook for "accidently" creating life? And before you turn this into some rant about women's rights, I certainly believe the father is just as responsible for that child's life and should be just as legaly bound as the mother.

Quote :

"Only superstition stands in the way of progress."

I'm not standing in the way of progress, merely demanding that people accept the consequences of the actions they take.

10/21/2007 4:18:15 PM

Quote :

"No it's a perfectly legitimate question. If you are saying that a person has a right to health CARE regardless of their ability to pay or compensate the provider of that care, then you are saying that a person has the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. Normaly we call the taking by force of someone else time or property theft, but somehow, when we get the government to do it for us, it's no longer theft. So I ask you again, what is the moral difference between someone mugging you for their medical bill and them just getting the government to force you to pay their bill? Why get the government involved at all? It's just a middle man who will drive up the cost (the middle man needs his cut too), why not just give all the poor people who can't afford to pay their medical bills the legal power to just charge it directly to any person who makes more than 25k per year."

Let's drop the act right here and now before we extend it into even more absurdities. Using your model, I could say the government is no better than the mob. After all, it demands "protection money" from me. Using its guns, it comes to me, extracts money, and uses that to buy more and more guns and toys for itself. The government steals money from me so that it can create a military. Would you condone this behavior if a private citizen mugged me for the cash to form a militia, but in return, protected my house?

I think we can both see that this line of argument is silly and leads nowhere. Besides, your example is constructed in the silliest fashion possible. What if the person involved needed the money to save his daughter from cancer? It changes the case quite a lot from cosmetic surgery, does it not?

What's worse is, I don't believe I really had to take you through this lesson -- you probably know already that your mode of reasoning is easily defeasible, but are in the habit of using these sloppily constructed arguments because it usually flies.

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing wrong about anything you have described. My problem is not accepting the consequences of the choices made. Yes, sex is a normal and healthy part of life, but it's also the part of life that makes babies. It's wonderful that we have technology to help prevent that from happening, but it's not perfect and that is a well known fact. Chosing to have sex is choosing to take the risk that those technologies will fail and you will create a child. If you are not prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, you should not be engaging in those actions. If I'm swinging a loaded gun around with the safety on and it "accidently" goes off and kills someone, I'm still on the hook for murder, why then should I not be on the hook for "accidently" creating life? And before you turn this into some rant about women's rights, I certainly believe the father is just as responsible for that child's life and should be just as legaly bound as the mother."

Yes, having sex is just like swinging around a pistol with the safety off.

Or, it's nothing like that. What you're suggesting is roughly equivalent to banning cold medications. After all, if you avoid going out in the rain, you should be able to avoid catching a cold. If you go out in the rain and catch one, then you should bear the consequences of walking in the rain, let nature take its course, and refuse to treat the symptoms of your cold. Why are you always trying to dodge the consequences?

Consequences aren't consequences when they're cancellable. Seeing as no rationally defensible position categorizes a clump of cells lacking a central nervous system as identifiably human (read: having possessed or in current possession of sentience) in any way, getting pregnant (in the early stages before a CNR develops) is cancellable. Thus, facing up to the consequences of the full pregnancy is as irresponsible, in some cases, as intentionally getting pregnant when you cannot properly care for the child.

Of course, if you think Jesus infuses each blastocyst with a soul (which has no empirical evidence to back it up and never will), then the conversation really breaks down, doesn't it? It's awfully hard to carry on a rational, educated conversation with somebody who believes we should act based on fairies and dragons.

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2007 4:38:04 PM

Quote :

"Let's drop the act right here and now before we extend it into even more absurdities. Using your model, I could say the government is no better than the mob. After all, it demands "protection money" from me. Using its guns, it comes to me, extracts money, and uses that to buy more and more guns and toys for itself. The government steals money from me so that it can create a military. "

You're right, the government to a very large degree is no better than the mob, and is why our founding fathers and men throught history have viewed governments with extreme suspicion. However, given that some form of government is inevitable, it is therefore desireable that man create the simplest form of government which serves the job of what a government should do. Arguing what a government should do is prciesely what this discussion is about.

Quote :

"Would you condone this behavior if a private citizen mugged me for the cash to form a militia, but in return, protected my house? "

Perhaps you've missed the parts above where I've emphisised that no man has the right to the fruits of another. No I don't condone that. However, if you entered into a contract agreeing that such would be the case, I would say that you're stuck as that is the contract you entered into. Government is formed much in the same way, people agreeing to the surrender of their freedoms and rights in exchange for a greater protection. But you should be under no illusion that the government is anything other than an exchange of liberty for safety.

Quote :

"Besides, your example is constructed in the silliest fashion possible. What if the person involved needed the money to save his daughter from cancer? It changes the case quite a lot from cosmetic surgery, does it not?"

Does it? Do I have the right to run you over on the way to the hospital to save my dying mother? Do I have the right to take your money to treat the incurable ailments that affect people in my family? Even if you could use that money to treat the ailments in yours?

Just because the situation at hand makes it more likely that you would freely surrender your money doesn't mean that someone has the right to take it. Does the beggar on the street have the right to steal your money to eat? If one of the homeless guys on hilsborough lunged out of an alley at you and stole your wallet would you not call the police because he's buying food with it? Does he have the right to do that?

Quote :

"Yes, having sex is just like swinging around a pistol with the safety off. "

Safety on. Perhaps if you read what I wrote rather than what you imagine I said our discussion could go somewhere.

Quote :

"Seeing as no rationally defensible position categorizes a clump of cells lacking a central nervous system as identifiably human (read: having possessed or in current possession of sentience) in any way, getting pregnant (in the early stages before a CNR develops) is cancellable. "

50 years ago they would have said the same thing about any premature baby. 100 years ago they would have said the same thing about mentaly retarded children. Today we wouldn't think about killing a mentaly retarded child or a premature baby. Pregnancy is always cancelable as long as you define whatever you're canceling as not human.

Quote :

"Of course, if you think Jesus infuses each blastocyst with a soul (which has no empirical evidence to back it up and never will), then the conversation really breaks down, doesn't it? It's awfully hard to carry on a rational, educated conversation with somebody who believes we should act based on fairies and dragons. "

This is the second time you've tried to derail this onto religion. Is it not possible for you to think that someone might hold this position without believing in gods? Or are you just looking for an excuse to use personal attacks to prevent discussing the actual issue at hand?

10/21/2007 6:49:56 PM

Quote :

" You're right, the government to a very large degree is no better than the mob, and is why our founding fathers and men throught history have viewed governments with extreme suspicion. However, given that some form of government is inevitable, it is therefore desireable that man create the simplest form of government which serves the job of what a government should do. Arguing what a government should do is prciesely what this discussion is about."

Agreed -- and I think the government should spend its resources caring for those in the greatest need. For the sake of the current argument, however, I've only been arguing for covering children in need. Children have no choice over their surroundings -- how is free health care for children whose parents either cannot or will not provide anything other than something a humane society would gladly do?

Quote :

"Perhaps you've missed the parts above where I've emphisised that no man has the right to the fruits of another. No I don't condone that. However, if you entered into a contract agreeing that such would be the case, I would say that you're stuck as that is the contract you entered into. Government is formed much in the same way, people agreeing to the surrender of their freedoms and rights in exchange for a greater protection. But you should be under no illusion that the government is anything other than an exchange of liberty for safety."

Of course this is the case -- we give up liberty for certain safeties and services. Other times, we give up a bit of money. What's the big deal?

Quote :

"Does it? Do I have the right to run you over on the way to the hospital to save my dying mother? Do I have the right to take your money to treat the incurable ailments that affect people in my family? Even if you could use that money to treat the ailments in yours?"

What sort of armchair philosopher arguments are these? The point is that anybody who cannot afford needed treatment would get it. It wouldn't get to a situation where you and I are warring over the same resources to treat our respective families.

Quote :

"Just because the situation at hand makes it more likely that you would freely surrender your money doesn't mean that someone has the right to take it. Does the beggar on the street have the right to steal your money to eat? If one of the homeless guys on hilsborough lunged out of an alley at you and stole your wallet would you not call the police because he's buying food with it? Does he have the right to do that?"

If the beggars have no opportunities at all, I'd say they have the right to being supported. However, in our society, they DO have the opportunity to get back on their feet. This is way different than the scenario you erroneously try and derive from my views, where bums can steal your money justifiably. It's patently obvious you don't spend much time thinking things through.

Quote :

"Safety on. Perhaps if you read what I wrote rather than what you imagine I said our discussion could go somewhere."

Rather than charitably reading what I wrote, you chose to latch onto an obvious typo. This is typical of people incapable of reasoning carefully, and also typical of people who have lost to the force of the better argument. I'm sure it scored some points with your peanut gallery, but past that, nobody with a shred of intelligence has been fooled.

Quote :

"50 years ago they would have said the same thing about any premature baby. 100 years ago they would have said the same thing about mentaly retarded children. Today we wouldn't think about killing a mentaly retarded child or a premature baby. Pregnancy is always cancelable as long as you define whatever you're canceling as not human."

Craft an argument as to why a pre-CNR pregnancy is a human being that doesn't rely on spiritual or religious notions.

Quote :

"This is the second time you've tried to derail this onto religion. Is it not possible for you to think that someone might hold this position without believing in gods? Or are you just looking for an excuse to use personal attacks to prevent discussing the actual issue at hand?"

Practically everybody arguing against early-term abortions do so from a religious or religiously-grounded-moral position. There's no rational argument to the contrary, unless you'd like to lay one out for me. There is only one motivation for thinking something as blatantly ignorant as "blastocysts are human beings deserving of as many rights as the mothers carrying them" -- it's a religious motivation. It's a level of blissful, high ignorance only attainable by faith.

10/21/2007 7:08:34 PM

^ It appears that secularism is your faith and academics and scientists are your clergy.

10/22/2007 12:53:48 AM

Quote :

"yeah people act like making children is some magical task and the future of human society counts on it. Women can make more babies. Especially before the baby is viable outside the womb i consider a fetus just an extension of the woman's body."

Didn't you know, human women are like ocampas. They are only fertile once in their 8 years of life.

10/22/2007 1:01:34 AM

Quote :

"^ It appears that secularism is your faith and academics and scientists are your clergy."

This is actually laughably far from the truth. But, I'm curious -- can you even back up this claim with a cogent argument?

10/22/2007 8:37:57 AM

Quote :

"Agreed -- and I think the government should spend its resources caring for those in the greatest need."

And this is where we clearly disagree. The (federal) government should spend it's resources caring for society as a whole, on projects which bennefit everyone. Projects which bennefit the few at the expense of the many should be left to the states or idealy voluntary institutions.

Quote :

"how is free health care for children whose parents either cannot or will not provide anything other than something a humane society would gladly do?"

How is providing free healthcare to parents who WON'T provide for their children going to solve the problem of parents who are wilfuly neglecting of their children?

And if a humane society would glady do such things, then why do you need the government (an extremely inefficient and corrupt instittution) to force people to do it?

Quote :

"Of course this is the case -- we give up liberty for certain safeties and services. Other times, we give up a bit of money. What's the big deal?"

The big deal is that every surrender of freedoms should be examined very carefully. Once freedom is surrendered, the ONLY way to get it back is by force.

Quote :

"he point is that anybody who cannot afford needed treatment would get it."

From who? Which doctors are you going to enslave and force to work for free so the poor may be cared for? If you're going to pay the doctors, which citizens are you going to forcefuly take money from so that the poor may be cared for? Perhaps you don't quite understand, NOTHING is free. While life is not a zero sum game, you can not just take from one side and give nothing in return. To provide care for the poor who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves you must either find volunteers or force people to surrender their labor (either directly or indirectly) to those poor.

Quote :

"It wouldn't get to a situation where you and I are warring over the same resources to treat our respective families. "

Really? The ammount of money that I pay into taxes each month for services which bennefit other people exclusively (that is, services I am not eligable to bennefit from) would be enough money to buy a private health plan for my wife, who is currently uninsured. Sounds like we're fighting over the same resources to me.

Quote :

"If the beggars have no opportunities at all, I'd say they have the right to being supported. "

By who?

Quote :

"However, in our society, they DO have the opportunity to get back on their feet. This is way different than the scenario you erroneously try and derive from my views, where bums can steal your money justifiably. It's patently obvious you don't spend much time thinking things through."

So tell me then how a bum on the street has oportunities and therefore does not have a right to be supported or cared for at the expense of others, but the poor families in this country don't have the same oportunities.

Quote :

"Rather than charitably reading what I wrote, you chose to latch onto an obvious typo."

Changing the word on to off is not just a typo, it changes the entire context of the argument. Are you seriously suggesting that I should change the context of your argument instead of responding to what you are saying? I didn't latch on to you saying "sefty" or "gnu" or even "no" you completely changed the word and context used in the argument. I think it's perfectly reasonable that I question your changing of he argument.

Quote :

"Craft an argument as to why a pre-CNR pregnancy is a human being that doesn't rely on spiritual or religious notions."

Because your line is just as arbitrary a point of defining the creation of real human life as drawing the line at the point where a new organism with seperate and distinct DNA from the mother and father is.

Quote :

"Practically everybody arguing against early-term abortions do so from a religious or religiously-grounded-moral position. There's no rational argument to the contrary, unless you'd like to lay one out for me. There is only one motivation for thinking something as blatantly ignorant as "blastocysts are human beings deserving of as many rights as the mothers carrying them" -- it's a religious motivation. It's a level of blissful, high ignorance only attainable by faith."

Well I'm not. I have not once brought god into this discussion and I would appreciate it if you would leave god out of it. The only position I am arguing from is that human life is not something that should be indiscriminately killed. From then on out it is simply a discussion of what is human life.

10/22/2007 10:49:38 AM

Quote :

"Well I'm not. I have not once brought god into this discussion and I would appreciate it if you would leave god out of it. The only position I am arguing from is that human life is not something that should be indiscriminately killed. From then on out it is simply a discussion of what is human life."

lol

10/22/2007 11:34:59 AM

Quote :

"he (federal) government should spend it's resources caring for society as a whole, on projects which bennefit everyone. Projects which bennefit the few at the expense of the many should be left to the states or idealy voluntary institutions."

Like the war in Iraq right??? That has consumed 100's of billions of dollors

10/22/2007 11:39:52 AM

Quote :

"And this is where we clearly disagree. The (federal) government should spend it's resources caring for society as a whole, on projects which bennefit everyone. Projects which bennefit the few at the expense of the many should be left to the states or idealy voluntary institutions."

This allows for people who have no control over their situations (read: children, the mentally handicapped) to be punished based solely upon where they were born (or where they are forced to live). I don't think it's morally permissible to allow people in these circumstances to be harmed by circumstances outside of their control. If this has to be ensured federally, then so be it.

Quote :

"How is providing free healthcare to parents who WON'T provide for their children going to solve the problem of parents who are wilfuly neglecting of their children? And if a humane society would glady do such things, then why do you need the government (an extremely inefficient and corrupt instittution) to force people to do it?"

Because even humane socities have people like you, who are clearly inhumane? If we have to ensure that children get care federally, then why is it a big deal? Not everything is a slippery slope to socialism.

Providing free health-care to children whose parents won't provide for them ensures that the kids at least get medical treatment. How is that a bad thing? Because it touches your wallet? Really?

Quote :

"The big deal is that every surrender of freedoms should be examined very carefully. Once freedom is surrendered, the ONLY way to get it back is by force."

What about my arguments suggests I haven't examined this very carefully? I think that we should ensure that every child has health care. The reasons why have been provided already, though I can expand them even further if I have to.

Quote :

"From who? Which doctors are you going to enslave and force to work for free so the poor may be cared for?"

Stop being ridiculous.

Quote :

"If you're going to pay the doctors, which citizens are you going to forcefuly take money from so that the poor may be cared for?"

People like you and me, who are doing just fine and can provide for basic needs already. I am actually pretty poor, but taxes wouldn't piss me off if they weren't pissed away. I don't considering providing for the basic needs of children who have no control over their situations to be pissing it away. I do consider blowing up random brown people in an oil/money-grab to be pissing it away.

Quote :

"Perhaps you don't quite understand, NOTHING is free. While life is not a zero sum game, you can not just take from one side and give nothing in return. To provide care for the poor who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves you must either find volunteers or force people to surrender their labor (either directly or indirectly) to those poor. "

Of course I understand this. The money will come from people like you, like it already does.

Quote :

" Really? The ammount of money that I pay into taxes each month for services which bennefit other people exclusively (that is, services I am not eligable to bennefit from) would be enough money to buy a private health plan for my wife, who is currently uninsured. Sounds like we're fighting over the same resources to me."

And if her insurance were taken care of through a public program, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with. But here's some advice: stop paying for internet access, and prepare your own food more often instead of going out. Perhaps share a car, or perhaps she can pick up a job (if she doesn't have one) or two (if she has one already). You know, Starbucks provides health-care for their employees, maybe she can serve me coffee for a living? I don't fucking know -- the point is, you guys have options, some of which involve going without luxuries. If you have to give up luxuries to give a child basic necessities, then so be it.

Quote :

"By who?"

People like you and me. After some help, they might gain opportunities (at which point supporting them using taxes would be morally impermissible).

Quote :

"So tell me then how a bum on the street has oportunities and therefore does not have a right to be supported or cared for at the expense of others, but the poor families in this country don't have the same oportunities."

It depends on the level of the support you're talking about, doesn't it? I think your example was about a bum needing food to eat. Poor families seem to do just fine affording food to eat, but medical care is a LOT more expensive than buying food (especially unexpected costs). Do I really have to put this together for you? Is it really the case that you and so many others misunderstand how to use logic to reason soundly? Just because you can abstract things doesn't mean the relations between them extend to all abstract notions.

Quote :

"Changing the word on to off is not just a typo, it changes the entire context of the argument. Are you seriously suggesting that I should change the context of your argument instead of responding to what you are saying? I didn't latch on to you saying "sefty" or "gnu" or even "no" you completely changed the word and context used in the argument. I think it's perfectly reasonable that I question your changing of he argument."

Except I didn't change the argument -- I addressed it regularly, but used the wrong word. If you could demonstrate how I actually misunderstood the argument by showing me how my argument used the difference between "safety off" and "safety on" substantively, then you'd have a case. But, you don't. Even if I really did mean "safety off," it changes nothing about the argument I spun out. The reason why is because I was bringing up your example merely to demonstrate how foolish it is. There's no firm comparison between the two acts (whether on or off) at all, because of what I elucidated further down the page.

This is precisely why you need to get in the habit of reading arguments carefully and reasoning through things rather than just employing traditional message-board argument tactics. If you think you can latch onto something so small and divert the attention away from your specious arguments, then you have a lot to learn about how to think.

Quote :

"Because your line is just as arbitrary a point of defining the creation of real human life as drawing the line at the point where a new organism with seperate and distinct DNA from the mother and father is."

No, it isn't, unless you embrace full-out Pyrrhonic Skepticism.

The reason why my dividing line isn't as arbitrary as any-old-theory is because of the reasons and arguments I have adduced in support of it. Why do I really have to explain this to you? I don't really believe you lack this many holes in your general comprehension and reasoning skills. Have you seriously abandoned your ability to think in light of supporting a dogmatic ideology, or do you not even realize the widespread errors you systematically make in your reasoning?

What about us is definitively human except for our consciousness and sensation? What makes us meaningfully alive (this could be read as "human beings" in the case of abortion arguments) is the fact that we have sensory experience. In cases where we are in a coma, knocked out, or deeply asleep, the relevant fact that makes us meaningfully alive is that we have been in the past and will presumably continue to be in the future. To kill a patient in a coma is wrong because there's a chance this person might regain a state of sensation and consciousness, which they have attained in the past.

The reason why a blastocyst, or a new string of DNA is not meaningfully alive is because it doesn't sense anything, and never has. The fact that it could is trivial --- this would make each one of my sperm meaningfully alive, or human beings. This is clearly absurd. If something has never possessed a central nervous system, then it can't be a human being. It has never had sensory or conscious experience.

How is this as arbitrary as "drawing the line" wherever one feels?

Quote :

"Well I'm not. I have not once brought god into this discussion and I would appreciate it if you would leave god out of it. The only position I am arguing from is that human life is not something that should be indiscriminately killed. From then on out it is simply a discussion of what is human life."

Produce a definition of human life that includes objects that never have had and currently do not have sensory experience, and leave any spiritual notions out of it. Also, make it one that's not completely absurd.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 1:14:51 PM

Its amazing how many liberals are so compasionate for everyone with a little sob story when the solution is always with other peoples money or time.

And please stop the "if govt spends money on A, then we should also spend it on B" arguements.

10/22/2007 1:21:21 PM

^ This contributes practically nothing to the discussion.

Quote :

"Its amazing how many liberals are so compasionate for everyone with a little sob story when the solution is always with other peoples money or time."

At what point are liberals exempt from taxes? I think the solution should involve everybody's money. I think the problem is one that society has an obligation to solve. I am included in society.

Quote :

"And please stop the "if govt spends money on A, then we should also spend it on B" arguements."

Why? If the majority of those who are well-off are still getting the stuff they want with this level of taxation, why should arguments about shifting the money from a morally impermissible program to a morally necessary program be unsound? You have to make a case for this.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 1:27:23 PM

bc mc, whose morals are we using to determine what programs to fund? Yours?

To keep on punishing people who are productive and do the right things to reward people who habitually make poor decisions is not helpful to ANYONE.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 1:34:35 PM