The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
02-27-2019, 08:04 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
My solution has been working for 36 years personally.
1. be as ugly as me and not get sex.
why does everything need a legislative solution? If you don't want a baby, don't have one. Simple. Couples aren't getting pregnant and having abortions so damn often in the US because the gov't isn't handing out enough condoms, or girls can't afford $20 a month for birth control.
I don't want to pay $0.000000000000000001 for anyone's anything.
and correction, you don't want to actually pay that $4, you want the rich to pay your fair share. And that $4 will actually only provide $.01 of revenue towards your solution, and is still not guaranteed to even work.
I'll leave banning breeding for AOC.
1. be as ugly as me and not get sex.
why does everything need a legislative solution? If you don't want a baby, don't have one. Simple. Couples aren't getting pregnant and having abortions so damn often in the US because the gov't isn't handing out enough condoms, or girls can't afford $20 a month for birth control.
I don't want to pay $0.000000000000000001 for anyone's anything.
and correction, you don't want to actually pay that $4, you want the rich to pay your fair share. And that $4 will actually only provide $.01 of revenue towards your solution, and is still not guaranteed to even work.
I'll leave banning breeding for AOC.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2019, 08:09 PM
1) Everyone is as ugly as you
2) Everyone makes well-thought-through decisions
A discussion about what would happen in a utopia isn't constructive. The discussion that matters is about damage control.
and correction, you don't want to actually pay that $4, you want the rich to pay your fair share.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2019, 08:15 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
you've made an abortion of this topic.
1. most people are.
2. so why is that my bill to pick up? why does everything by default have to be "oh if only the govt picked up the tab for XYZ then, and only then, we will have our utopia? This is not constructive at all and is always the default to-go for leftists. problem: xyz solution: more money/taxes -- every damn time.
I made a simple comment about wishing we were a nation of birth control and personal-responsibility. The first thing you leftist went to was: well you republicans don't want to pay for birth control and welfare. it's ironic.
1. most people are.
2. so why is that my bill to pick up? why does everything by default have to be "oh if only the govt picked up the tab for XYZ then, and only then, we will have our utopia? This is not constructive at all and is always the default to-go for leftists. problem: xyz solution: more money/taxes -- every damn time.
I made a simple comment about wishing we were a nation of birth control and personal-responsibility. The first thing you leftist went to was: well you republicans don't want to pay for birth control and welfare. it's ironic.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2019, 08:19 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
Because lazy people, who want someone else to take care of them, vote.
My observation is this:
While I agree that it would be ideal if all entitlement programs ceased to exist, I accept the fact that this will never happen, and that arguing from that precept is both futile and irrational.
Social-service programs will only continue to grow. The reason is that they are controlled by legislators, and legislators benefit from increasing them.
The best that we can hope for is to find the solution which costs us the least.
My observation is this:
While I agree that it would be ideal if all entitlement programs ceased to exist, I accept the fact that this will never happen, and that arguing from that precept is both futile and irrational.
Social-service programs will only continue to grow. The reason is that they are controlled by legislators, and legislators benefit from increasing them.
The best that we can hope for is to find the solution which costs us the least.
Reply
1
1
02-27-2019, 09:05 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, what works in theory works in practice.
Trying to rail against a growing tide of socialism is a hill that I choose not to die on. I base this decision on the past three generations of my family history. Since there are no countries left for me to run to, I'd rather work the system and profit from within it than spit my dying breath at people who consider my existence to be illegitimate based on my gender, sexuality, and skin color. (Despite the name, I'm not all that brown. I've told the story before about the guy at the restaurant counter in East Harlem who assumed I was French. Ironically, the only person ever to correctly identify my national origin at first guess was an airport security officer, in Paris.)
Reply
0
0
02-27-2019, 10:54 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
That wording mirrors what's already in place for many states. That's my whole point here. This isn't anything new. None of it is.
And you go through a C-section if the baby isn't technically alive during times that would deem it medically necessary or at the very least, way safer than other methods. C-section to remove a dead fetus is a thing.
And you go through a C-section if the baby isn't technically alive during times that would deem it medically necessary or at the very least, way safer than other methods. C-section to remove a dead fetus is a thing.
In Cali it's ok to withhold that you have aids and transmit it to someone else...not a crime. Baffles me. Even moreso, wasnt ever announced. Just "happened."
For the second part I agree with you. There was miscommunication there. I meant if a c section can result in a living delivered baby, then at that point, the baby (prior to birth) should be considered alive. If it comes out dead, that's a whole different story. Theres a difference between assuming the baby is alive and doing what's needed, vs starting it off with assuming it's just tissue/dead.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2019, 10:57 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
To support some numbers from the other discussions happening...
Top 1% pay 30ish% of the taxes...bump it up to 10%, and they pay for 70% of the taxes collected. Based on IRS 2016 data. I'll put the link up when I remember xD
Top 1% pay 30ish% of the taxes...bump it up to 10%, and they pay for 70% of the taxes collected. Based on IRS 2016 data. I'll put the link up when I remember xD
Last edited by wherestheboost; 02-27-2019 at 11:48 PM.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 07:43 AM
What % of the taxes do the bottom 50% take? Not because it's relevant to this discussion in particular, but because I'm curious.
The value of life is determined not in the mind of the deceased, but rather by the relationships, knowledge, skills and abilities that one has. An unborn child has zero valuable knowledge, skills, and abilities, and the only true relationship that such baby has is with it's mother (and it may have a superficial relationship with it's father in situations where the father actively chooses to have such a relationship). Therefore, the choice to abort is appropriately placed solely with the mother (and sometimes the father) up until the point that a third person accepts delivery of the child during birth. If the decision is made to terminate said child before a third person accepts delivery of that child, and that third person knowingly and willingly accepts delivery, then it can be assumed that third person has accepted the choice of the parents to terminate said child.
Termination before birth then, can be no more murder than what happens to the average male chick upon hatching in a commercial food operation. The male chick has no useful knowledge, skills, or abilities, and a "relationship" only with the first "picker" to come across him. Humans are no more than mere animals in this regard, and to say otherwise is religious. If congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then there exists no legal grounds for preventing or punishing the act of terminating any unborn child.
The biggest lie the establishment has taught us is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are mutually exclusive. This is not the case. I am "pro-choice". My "choice" is "life". In making that choice, I also respect the freedom of others to choose how they desire. For similar reasons, I cannot respect the argument of any person who would willfully disallow a grown adult from making a decision to terminate their own unborn child at any stage in the pregnancy. The parentally imposed deaths of 1.4 million unborn babies annually (as it were at its peak in 1990) would have no negative lasting impact on the quality of my life, and actually, it has been argued that the freedom of said parents to impose death upon their unborn children may have had a lasting positive impact on the quality of my life. (source: The impact of legalized abortion on crime)
The value of life is determined not in the mind of the deceased, but rather by the relationships, knowledge, skills and abilities that one has. An unborn child has zero valuable knowledge, skills, and abilities, and the only true relationship that such baby has is with it's mother (and it may have a superficial relationship with it's father in situations where the father actively chooses to have such a relationship). Therefore, the choice to abort is appropriately placed solely with the mother (and sometimes the father) up until the point that a third person accepts delivery of the child during birth. If the decision is made to terminate said child before a third person accepts delivery of that child, and that third person knowingly and willingly accepts delivery, then it can be assumed that third person has accepted the choice of the parents to terminate said child.
Termination before birth then, can be no more murder than what happens to the average male chick upon hatching in a commercial food operation. The male chick has no useful knowledge, skills, or abilities, and a "relationship" only with the first "picker" to come across him. Humans are no more than mere animals in this regard, and to say otherwise is religious. If congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then there exists no legal grounds for preventing or punishing the act of terminating any unborn child.
The biggest lie the establishment has taught us is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are mutually exclusive. This is not the case. I am "pro-choice". My "choice" is "life". In making that choice, I also respect the freedom of others to choose how they desire. For similar reasons, I cannot respect the argument of any person who would willfully disallow a grown adult from making a decision to terminate their own unborn child at any stage in the pregnancy. The parentally imposed deaths of 1.4 million unborn babies annually (as it were at its peak in 1990) would have no negative lasting impact on the quality of my life, and actually, it has been argued that the freedom of said parents to impose death upon their unborn children may have had a lasting positive impact on the quality of my life. (source: The impact of legalized abortion on crime)
Reply
1
1
02-28-2019, 10:16 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,660
Total Cats: 3,011
An unborn kitten has zero valuable knowledge, skills, and abilities, and the only true relationship that such kitten has is with it's mother cat. Therefore, the choice to abort is appropriately placed solely with the mother cat up until the point that a third person accepts delivery of the kitten during birth. If the decision is made to terminate said kitten before a third person accepts delivery of that kitten, then it can be assumed that third person has accepted the choice of the mother cat to terminate said kitten.
I thought abortion was the one thing that was off-limits for discussion on this forum. What happened to that?
Reply
1
1
02-28-2019, 10:22 AM
you've made an abortion of this topic.
1. most people are.
2. so why is that my bill to pick up? why does everything by default have to be "oh if only the govt picked up the tab for XYZ then, and only then, we will have our utopia? This is not constructive at all and is always the default to-go for leftists. problem: xyz solution: more money/taxes -- every damn time.
I made a simple comment about wishing we were a nation of birth control and personal-responsibility. The first thing you leftist went to was: well you republicans don't want to pay for birth control and welfare. it's ironic.
1. most people are.
2. so why is that my bill to pick up? why does everything by default have to be "oh if only the govt picked up the tab for XYZ then, and only then, we will have our utopia? This is not constructive at all and is always the default to-go for leftists. problem: xyz solution: more money/taxes -- every damn time.
I made a simple comment about wishing we were a nation of birth control and personal-responsibility. The first thing you leftist went to was: well you republicans don't want to pay for birth control and welfare. it's ironic.
I'd LOOOOOOOOVE it if only smart and responsible people bred. 10/10 would recommend. Sounds awesome. It's not reality. Wish it was. We could live there and be ugly together.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 10:24 AM
I see what you mean on that part. At the same time...I'm still ok with having a family choose to keep the child if the moms health is at risk (not life). There needs to be a cutoff point for "health." Also if it's the case with many states...it doesn't make it better. It's just that they were able to let it slide without spotlight.
In Cali it's ok to withhold that you have aids and transmit it to someone else...not a crime. Baffles me. Even moreso, wasnt ever announced. Just "happened."
For the second part I agree with you. There was miscommunication there. I meant if a c section can result in a living delivered baby, then at that point, the baby (prior to birth) should be considered alive. If it comes out dead, that's a whole different story. Theres a difference between assuming the baby is alive and doing what's needed, vs starting it off with assuming it's just tissue/dead.
In Cali it's ok to withhold that you have aids and transmit it to someone else...not a crime. Baffles me. Even moreso, wasnt ever announced. Just "happened."
For the second part I agree with you. There was miscommunication there. I meant if a c section can result in a living delivered baby, then at that point, the baby (prior to birth) should be considered alive. If it comes out dead, that's a whole different story. Theres a difference between assuming the baby is alive and doing what's needed, vs starting it off with assuming it's just tissue/dead.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 11:30 AM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Damn I keep on seeing holes in my words after the fact. Ha! What I meant was, if the mother's "health" was going to be compromised - but not her life, she should not have the choice to abort (more specifically mid-late term). If her life (aka she'd be dead) was at risk, then sure. With that in mind, I personally would have wanted to have the word "health" not added. But that's just me.
Also, great thread.
To add the data that I missed before in regards to taxes...
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
And to answer the question from above...the bottom 50% pay for 2.75% of all federal taxes. I think the number is the bottom 40% pay no taxes at all. But that was only by hearsay and I don't have the data to back it up. Seems logical by looking at the data, but we'd only be arguing about <3%. Funny thing would be if you fall under the "50%" category...it's a fallacy to say "I pay my taxes."
Sixshooter - my bad - didn't realize that was a thing.
Fooger - I actually like your argument there. I can see the point with the bit being "religious." Granted I am, so I'll always have that going on me. To compare a human to a dog, cat, animal, etc - I'd argue beyond religion and speak solely on potential. The "potential" human being. A chicken's highest form is dinner. A human...well - total destruction, world idol, or everything in between, etc.
Overarching, I'm not arguing to end all abortion. I'm arguing to end mid-late term abortion - and more specifically late term abortion - and even more specifically, when it's a choice by the mother/family instead of medical necessity (aka - doctor says "this needs to happen or you're going to die"). I'd probably throw out the "well it didn't hinder my quality of life so..." - I can see that for "lighter" things (#gaymarriage - Glad that finally got worked out) - but not when it comes to some people's definition of life. Ideal case scenario, we go back to personal responsibility and that sex has consequences.
And as far as paying for it... would a vote suffice?
Oh the wall. Yeah, I'm ok with the wall. All this spinning about how an inanimate wall is racist, immoral, etc. is just hilarious to me. The main purpose of the wall is so that the doors are used. Hell, it's so that the doors become relevant.
Also, great thread.
To add the data that I missed before in regards to taxes...
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
And to answer the question from above...the bottom 50% pay for 2.75% of all federal taxes. I think the number is the bottom 40% pay no taxes at all. But that was only by hearsay and I don't have the data to back it up. Seems logical by looking at the data, but we'd only be arguing about <3%. Funny thing would be if you fall under the "50%" category...it's a fallacy to say "I pay my taxes."
Sixshooter - my bad - didn't realize that was a thing.
Fooger - I actually like your argument there. I can see the point with the bit being "religious." Granted I am, so I'll always have that going on me. To compare a human to a dog, cat, animal, etc - I'd argue beyond religion and speak solely on potential. The "potential" human being. A chicken's highest form is dinner. A human...well - total destruction, world idol, or everything in between, etc.
Overarching, I'm not arguing to end all abortion. I'm arguing to end mid-late term abortion - and more specifically late term abortion - and even more specifically, when it's a choice by the mother/family instead of medical necessity (aka - doctor says "this needs to happen or you're going to die"). I'd probably throw out the "well it didn't hinder my quality of life so..." - I can see that for "lighter" things (#gaymarriage - Glad that finally got worked out) - but not when it comes to some people's definition of life. Ideal case scenario, we go back to personal responsibility and that sex has consequences.
And as far as paying for it... would a vote suffice?
Oh the wall. Yeah, I'm ok with the wall. All this spinning about how an inanimate wall is racist, immoral, etc. is just hilarious to me. The main purpose of the wall is so that the doors are used. Hell, it's so that the doors become relevant.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 12:23 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
That is correct. But here's the rub. In a late term abortion - you're going to need to deliver the baby anyways (either via C-section or vaginal) - so why go out of the way to kill the baby first? That's all I'm wondering.
Almost forgot to also add, in the spirit of education and informing the populace - I think that prior to a mid/late term abortion (again...only if a living baby was a possibility without death to the mother), the mother/family should watch an ultrasound of the procedure that they're going to have. Hell, everyone should. "There's no pain, it's not alive, this is humane, blah blah blah." Make it happen.
Almost forgot to also add, in the spirit of education and informing the populace - I think that prior to a mid/late term abortion (again...only if a living baby was a possibility without death to the mother), the mother/family should watch an ultrasound of the procedure that they're going to have. Hell, everyone should. "There's no pain, it's not alive, this is humane, blah blah blah." Make it happen.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 12:36 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
That is correct. But here's the rub. In a late term abortion - you're going to need to deliver the baby anyways (either via C-section or vaginal) - so why go out of the way to kill the baby first? That's all I'm wondering.
Almost forgot to also add, in the spirit of education and informing the populace - I think that prior to a mid/late term abortion (again...only if a living baby was a possibility without death to the mother), the mother/family should watch an ultrasound of the procedure that they're going to have. Hell, everyone should. "There's no pain, it's not alive, this is humane, blah blah blah." Make it happen.
Almost forgot to also add, in the spirit of education and informing the populace - I think that prior to a mid/late term abortion (again...only if a living baby was a possibility without death to the mother), the mother/family should watch an ultrasound of the procedure that they're going to have. Hell, everyone should. "There's no pain, it's not alive, this is humane, blah blah blah." Make it happen.
We get it, you believe the Bible, nothing is going to change your mind.
This topic is boring, let's move on.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 12:42 PM
And to answer the question from above...the bottom 50% pay for 2.75% of all federal taxes. I think the number is the bottom 40% pay no taxes at all. But that was only by hearsay and I don't have the data to back it up. Seems logical by looking at the data, but we'd only be arguing about <3%. Funny thing would be if you fall under the "50%" category...it's a fallacy to say "I pay my taxes."
Reply
1
1
02-28-2019, 12:55 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Late term = 3rd tri = 28-40 weeks. Because at this point, the main exit point is delivery. If C-section or vag delivery (which you're going to do anyways because you're in late term) has a medically proven chance of resulting in a living baby, abortion should not be an option. That's all I'm saying. Not arguing the early/mid terms (1st/2nd tri, aka <28 weeks) because that gets more heavily weighted on religion.
New York - can't get lethal injection on criminal, but you can on a 36wk baby? It's funny that I often see the double-side...reps like capital punishment, but are against abortion...and dems hate capital punishment, but are ok with abortion. Both need to be more consistent. Either life is valuable, or life is not. Burden on society - etc etc etc.
1.3% of all abortions - keep the stat in percentages to drown the number. The stat you're referring to is from 2012 (actually also valid for 2015). In 2012, 699k abortions were had. 1.3% of that is shy over 9,000 babies. 2015 was 638k --> shy under 8,300 babies. That's for >21weeks. I'd imagine it's a smaller number for >28 weeks. Should there be a law that protects up to 9000 bebs? I'd think so. Should mothers/families be encouraged to make a final decision prior to 28 weeks? I'd also think so.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2019, 01:01 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Reply
0
0
