< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro Abortion NOT Pro Choice

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:09
 
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:12
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

What if someone requires public assistance after having kids?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:13
 
Jefe - 23 June 2019 04:37 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:54 AM
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

An easier, and possibly better way is affordable and readily available contraception. 
Lets start with less invasive methods first?

Sure. That’s cheaper than abortions. But that doesn’t account for people who are irresponsible and fail to take advantage of it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  563
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:13
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

This is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not robbery.  I’m only shooting you if you don’t decide to give me all your money.  It was your decision.

But lets play your little weaseling word game.

Are you saying that you are okay with the government withholding its services unless you undergo medical procedures that it has picked for you?

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:14
 
Jefe - 23 June 2019 05:12 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

What if someone requires public assistance after having kids?

As long as they don’t have any more kids, they can continue receiving public assistance.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:19
 
Garret - 23 June 2019 05:13 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

This is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not robbery.  I’m only shooting you if you don’t decide to give me all your money.  It was your decision.

But lets play your little weaseling word game.

Are you saying that you are okay with the government withholding its services unless you undergo medical procedures that it has picked for you?

So if I understand your analogy correctly, not receiving public assistance is tantamount to being shot? That seems like a poor analogy to me.

I’m saying that if you’re on public assistance, you have to choose between continuing to receive it and having more kids. You can do that by not getting pregnant in the first place, as Jefe suggests.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21817
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:38
 
Jefe - 22 June 2019 07:09 PM
EN - 22 June 2019 05:08 PM

Wouldn’t it be better to let her have the child, then terminate her parental rights and put the child up for adoption?  Why abort a 22 week fetus and give the appearance of a Draconian decision.  She and her mother wanted it. Appoint the grandmother as custodian - another option.

Why abort?
Frequently the real and perilous risks of pregnancy and child-birth get forgotten when this question comes up.
There is a non-zero chance that the mother could die.  If her disabilities are heritable, there is a non-zero chance the child will inherit those.

I’m not saying it is necessarily correct for the government to impose this decision, but there are health risks involved in carrying and delivering a baby, and we don’t know the whole health story of the mother in this case.

I’m well aware of the risks, but the woman and her mother seem willing to accept it.  The state shouldn’t act like an Uber-nanny. But you are right -we don’t know the whole story.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  563
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 June 2019 17:50
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:19 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 05:13 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

This is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not robbery.  I’m only shooting you if you don’t decide to give me all your money.  It was your decision.

But lets play your little weaseling word game.

Are you saying that you are okay with the government withholding its services unless you undergo medical procedures that it has picked for you?

So if I understand your analogy correctly, not receiving public assistance is tantamount to being shot? That seems like a poor analogy to me.

I’m saying that if you’re on public assistance, you have to choose between continuing to receive it and having more kids. You can do that by not getting pregnant in the first place, as Jefe suggests.

So, you want the government making medical decisions for you.  Cool.

I understand that you don’t realize this is what you are advocating, but it is what you’re advocating.  You want the government to be able to withhold services unless people agree to undergo medical procedures.  You are advocating for the government to leverage people into medical choices.

In my analogy, I’m not forcing you to give me your money.  I’m just giving you the option.  It’s your decision.  You have control.  You can either give me your money, or get shot.  It’s totally up to you.  It isn’t my fault if you get shot, that would be YOUR decision.  This analogy is to point out the ridiculousness of how you are presenting your situation in order to avoid the obviously stupid outcome that I’m pointing out to you.

[ Edited: 23 June 2019 17:56 by Garret]
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9716
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 23:26
 
Garret - 23 June 2019 05:50 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:19 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 05:13 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 05:09 PM
Garret - 23 June 2019 04:05 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

No. The decision is not being “enforced.” Nor are any medical procedures being “mandated.” As long as you don’t mind not receiving public assistance, you can have as many kids as you want.

This is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not robbery.  I’m only shooting you if you don’t decide to give me all your money.  It was your decision.

But lets play your little weaseling word game.

Are you saying that you are okay with the government withholding its services unless you undergo medical procedures that it has picked for you?

So if I understand your analogy correctly, not receiving public assistance is tantamount to being shot? That seems like a poor analogy to me.

I’m saying that if you’re on public assistance, you have to choose between continuing to receive it and having more kids. You can do that by not getting pregnant in the first place, as Jefe suggests.

So, you want the government making medical decisions for you.  Cool.

I understand that you don’t realize this is what you are advocating, but it is what you’re advocating.  You want the government to be able to withhold services unless people agree to undergo medical procedures.  You are advocating for the government to leverage people into medical choices.

In my analogy, I’m not forcing you to give me your money.  I’m just giving you the option.  It’s your decision.  You have control.  You can either give me your money, or get shot.  It’s totally up to you.  It isn’t my fault if you get shot, that would be YOUR decision.  This analogy is to point out the ridiculousness of how you are presenting your situation in order to avoid the obviously stupid outcome that I’m pointing out to you.

I’m tending to go with Garrett on this one.  I can understand putting conditions on receiving government assistance, but giving up rights should not be one of them.  Maybe make threats to revoke government assistance and tax exemptions for the wealthy for similar reasons - government benefits in exchange for higher wages for workers through lower executive compensation, and better worker and environmental protections.  That way the double standard of embarrassing the poor while rewarding the rich for taking government handouts can be balanced.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  563
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
24 June 2019 07:20
 

My objection is even more basic.  I don’t think we should have the government making medical decisions about us.

ASD is advocating a move towards authoritarianism.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 June 2019 21:35
 
Garret - 24 June 2019 07:20 AM

My objection is even more basic.  I don’t think we should have the government making medical decisions about us.

ASD is advocating a move towards authoritarianism.

In a perfect world, the government would stay completely out of health care. For example, if you wanted to smoke and got lung cancer but couldn’t afford treatment and no private citizen or organization was willing to step up and help you out, you’d die in the street. In that case, I’d agree with you: the government shouldn’t be making medical decisions about us. But as long as I’m paying for your stupid choices, then I—via the government—should have a say in your medical decisions.

Yes, I’m advocating more authoritarianism. Since I’m stuck in a Nanny State, I’m fully embracing it.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  733
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
27 June 2019 05:16
 

Ah yes, the silly “if you do a little bit of a thing, then you have to do a whole lot of that thing” sentiment.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  563
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
27 June 2019 05:57
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 June 2019 09:35 PM
Garret - 24 June 2019 07:20 AM

My objection is even more basic.  I don’t think we should have the government making medical decisions about us.

ASD is advocating a move towards authoritarianism.

In a perfect world, the government would stay completely out of health care. For example, if you wanted to smoke and got lung cancer but couldn’t afford treatment and no private citizen or organization was willing to step up and help you out, you’d die in the street. In that case, I’d agree with you: the government shouldn’t be making medical decisions about us. But as long as I’m paying for your stupid choices, then I—via the government—should have a say in your medical decisions.

Yes, I’m advocating more authoritarianism. Since I’m stuck in a Nanny State, I’m fully embracing it.

No, you aren’t fully embracing it.  If you were, you would be agreeing with the mandatory kidney donation system.  You are only agreeing to the Nanny State in situations that you think you will be exempt from.  You are only agreeing to it in situations that punishes women for having sex that you disapprove of.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2874
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
27 June 2019 09:12
 

The government has a justified interest in the health of its citizens. Saying that it should stay out of Healthcare is just as silly as saying it should stay out of education.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6830
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 June 2019 15:36
 
Garret - 27 June 2019 05:57 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 June 2019 09:35 PM
Garret - 24 June 2019 07:20 AM

My objection is even more basic.  I don’t think we should have the government making medical decisions about us.

ASD is advocating a move towards authoritarianism.

In a perfect world, the government would stay completely out of health care. For example, if you wanted to smoke and got lung cancer but couldn’t afford treatment and no private citizen or organization was willing to step up and help you out, you’d die in the street. In that case, I’d agree with you: the government shouldn’t be making medical decisions about us. But as long as I’m paying for your stupid choices, then I—via the government—should have a say in your medical decisions.

Yes, I’m advocating more authoritarianism. Since I’m stuck in a Nanny State, I’m fully embracing it.

No, you aren’t fully embracing it.  If you were, you would be agreeing with the mandatory kidney donation system.  You are only agreeing to the Nanny State in situations that you think you will be exempt from.  You are only agreeing to it in situations that punishes women for having sex that you disapprove of.

Your lame analogy, propensity for hyperbole and reliance on strawman arguments make your position less than convincing. To put it tactfully.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›