Is there any independent candidate who appeals to both left and right?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
None taken, it is common for the unexposed to ask what the exposed may consider inane questions. It is merely a knowledge gap on your part. A little bit of homework would help you here. I do keep running charts, but the turning points are built in so I do not need to engage in all that cycle work.
So if a woman doesn't get an abortion that she wants, but can't afford, and we get another crack baby that costs the taxpayer money in the long run...you are good with that?
Doesn't make economic sense at all.
You don't appear to have a moral issue with abortion, so I am looking only at the economics of the situation.
Doesn't make economic sense at all.
You don't appear to have a moral issue with abortion, so I am looking only at the economics of the situation.
In fact, I have a very deep moral issue with abortion, but if I were a SCOTUS justice, I could not bring myself to outlaw it, as it is an infringement on the liberty of the individual.
If she cannot afford the abortion, then the baby comes. We as a society will be obligated to provide that child with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more, nothing less. The child did not ask to come( as far as we know) and the mother could not hire a medical assassin to kill it. So it is here, it is a citizen and subject to the laws and benefits thereof of our original and amended charter.
So you are anti abortion, only if the taxpayer has to pay for it?
Sorry...but that is some inconsistent morality working there...
The problem is that we as a society, do not see to it that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are achieved by allowing a crack baby not to get all the requirements to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Pay now, or pay a heck of a lot later...
I find it morally inconsistent to force a woman to have a child for the sake of the child, knowing full well that the child is going to suffer a miserable life.
We send irresponsible people to jail all the time, but we force irresponsible women to have babies against their will because they can't afford it?
Again, it is inconsistent logic to preach the sanctity of life, then ignore the quality of life once a baby has been forced born.
Good golly, the woman can't afford an abortion or the right to go to a free clinic...but that woman will be able to afford the proper pre-natal care, and post birth proper care of a baby?
Sorry...but that is some inconsistent morality working there...
The problem is that we as a society, do not see to it that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are achieved by allowing a crack baby not to get all the requirements to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Pay now, or pay a heck of a lot later...
I find it morally inconsistent to force a woman to have a child for the sake of the child, knowing full well that the child is going to suffer a miserable life.
We send irresponsible people to jail all the time, but we force irresponsible women to have babies against their will because they can't afford it?
Again, it is inconsistent logic to preach the sanctity of life, then ignore the quality of life once a baby has been forced born.
Good golly, the woman can't afford an abortion or the right to go to a free clinic...but that woman will be able to afford the proper pre-natal care, and post birth proper care of a baby?
Optional,
While you consistently try to lump pro-lifers into your economic analysis, it just isn't a good fit. As a blanket statement, pro-lifers aren't concerned at all with the future costs of the child. It is most certainly a moral argument. There are those of us who don't think the federal g-ment should have the ability to take away the right of a woman to choose. But on the same token, we still don't support that personal choice and are not willing to donate funds to assist in executing it.
That is the flaw in your logic. Nobody is forcing her to have a baby. She made a choice and doesn't have the means to alter the consequences of that choice.
You would suggest that if one day I was walking down the street and a pregnant hooker asked me for $ for an abortion, and I didn't give it to her, that somehow I am now responsible for taking care of the child. According to you, I forced her to bring the child into the world.
Surely you can see the flaw in that logic?!?
Oh, I understand that pro-lifers aren't concerned with future cost or future quality of life for children born against their mother's will. They don't think they are morally responsible for the poor and sick...despite the words of their master, Jesus Christ.
I find that inconsistent, that so many of the pro-lifers claim to be Christian, yet they care nothing for the quality of life of the forced born.
If the so called Christians were doing the moral thing, they would make sure a forced birth child were taken care of properly, the way Jesus said to take care of the poor and sick...
I find that inconsistent, that so many of the pro-lifers claim to be Christian, yet they care nothing for the quality of life of the forced born.
If the so called Christians were doing the moral thing, they would make sure a forced birth child were taken care of properly, the way Jesus said to take care of the poor and sick...
Yes, she is being forced to have a baby.
There is a medical remedy to pregnancy...abortion. It is free at clinics that are government sponsored.
If the woman made a mistake, or was lazy, or a whore, or for whatever got pregnant when she had no business getting pregnant...if you care about the child enough to deny the woman the right or wherewithal to fix the mistake...then you should also be willing to pony up and take proper care of that child until the child can take care of itself...or have the taxpayer fund the abortion.
This is what bothers me about the right to lifers, they only care about forcing birth and detaining death...never about the quality of life that people have to suffer through (Terri Schaivo)...but pay little attention to the period in between birth and death...caring not if there was preventable suffering.
There is a medical remedy to pregnancy...abortion. It is free at clinics that are government sponsored.
If the woman made a mistake, or was lazy, or a whore, or for whatever got pregnant when she had no business getting pregnant...if you care about the child enough to deny the woman the right or wherewithal to fix the mistake...then you should also be willing to pony up and take proper care of that child until the child can take care of itself...or have the taxpayer fund the abortion.
This is what bothers me about the right to lifers, they only care about forcing birth and detaining death...never about the quality of life that people have to suffer through (Terri Schaivo)...but pay little attention to the period in between birth and death...caring not if there was preventable suffering.
Quote from Cache Landing:
That is the flaw in your logic. Nobody is forcing her to have a baby. She made a choice and doesn't have the means to alter the consequences of that choice.
You would suggest that if one day I was walking down the street and a pregnant hooker asked me for $ for an abortion, and I didn't give it to her, that somehow I am now responsible for taking care of the child. According to you, I forced her to bring the child into the world.
Surely you can see the flaw in that logic?!?
Well, according to most economic studies, those conservative Christians you refer to statistically contribute more in both % and nominal amounts to charity than do their liberal counterparts.
I would say that they are at least trying to do what you are demanding, even though they disagree with your premise.