cancel2 2022
Canceled
They want all these unwanted babies to be born and then they say screw you, not our reponsibility!!
Last edited:
Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
They want all these unwanted babies to be born and then they say screw you, not our reponsibility!!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Sorry... we will call it leftist hack then....
To state that it is 'propaganda' is nothing short of a joke. It is FACT. That is what occurred. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The EU, US, UN, Saudi etc... said 'uh, no... we need to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait'. We all did.
Of course oil was a consideration. As was security (for Saudi). As was the freedom of the Kuwaiti's. There were many factors as to WHY we went in. But again, to pretend Bush just decided to attack Iraq is nothing short of absurdity.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and you say.... 'die child die'
I wonder... if you asked most people which of the following options they would choose, which would be the most popular....
1) You are born into a world where you have to fend for yourself.
2) We kill you.
Which do you think the majority would choose? The one where they have a chance (however small) to survive and live out their lives. Or one where they have no chance at all?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The third choice is to say that if you have the child we won't abandon you to your fate.
Socrtease
Verified User
You political brethern just tried to a change the federal law so if a woman conceived from Date rape it would not be rape. For it to be rape she had to be hurt and injured. Your simplistic view is that somehow making abortion illegal will stop abortions. LOOK AT ROMANIA under communist rule. THAT is what YOU want for this country whether you know it or not. Abortion is a HORRIBLE decision that any woman would have to make, but YOUR brethern want to force her to carry the child to term, the GIFT of human life. But once that gift is born, your brethern put up their hands and say "not my problem. You should have kept your legs closed." So much for the gift of life.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
In principle I am pro-life (I believe abortion is wrong), but as a matter of public policy, I am essentially pro-choice. The belief that banning abortions would magically stop them from occurring stems from a very naive, almost child-like view of the world. The fact of the matter is, abortion is here to stay whether it is legal or not. And while there are certainly steps that can be taken to reduce the number of abortions, there is no reason to believe that a war on abortion would be any more successful than prohibition, the war on drugs, or the war on poverty.
Bfgrn
New member
I was ready to give you a thumbs up, until the last word. It is the one war that was a success, even after LBJ cut funding to pay for killing and maiming.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Poverty decreased in spite of the "war on poverty," not as a result of it. That aside, other liberals have apparently had no objection to giving me props. You're just a political hack, and frankly I don't give a damn whether you approve of what I post or not - it means nothing to me.
Cancel9
Banned
That's a pretty peppery response. Almost as hot as say, Tabasco.
Bfgrn
New member
When people make absolutely bone headed statements like "Poverty decreased in spite of the "war on poverty" I'm glad I didn't give you props. It tells me your cognitive skills are at the level of a child.
When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
I hate to disappoint you, but Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program tried to create maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. The Office of Economic Opportunity was a community based effort that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
Ref
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What? I don't think the government should pay for abortions either.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, he was anti-infidel. Al Queda gets support from local people the same way Hitler did- by giving away stuff.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
True, in an ideal world that is what would happen to every child. The point was that those who proclaim 'well gee, they won't be taken care of, thus they would be better off dead' should answer the question as to which of the two options they would prefer.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) To pretend to equate those people to myself is nothing short of absurd. you are attempting to paint everyone who is pro-life with some gigantic brush. To pretend that we all share that same view is pathetic.
2) I never once suggested that making abortions illegal would stop them all together. Again you are attempting to create a pathetic strawman. I stated that abortions should be illegal (barring the womans life being in danger) because an abortion takes an innocent life.
3) Bottom line, you are a pathetic hack. They are not my brethren. Not even close. You pretend that because SOME of the children wouldn't get the care they deserve from their parents or society that somehow justifies you deciding the child would be better off dead.
Again.... which do you think most people would choose if they knew that upon being born they would have to fight for everything they got and that life would be hard....
1) accepting the fight and trying to make their life better
2) fuck it... just kill me before I have any chance at all.... because death is obviously the better option