Dumb comment. Taxes are raised to implement failed progressive redistribution utopian ideology where the majority of taxes go.
In other words you have absolutely nothing of any value to refute the facts and links provided regarding the actual causes of poverty so instead you try to obfuscate your own lack of substance. Your concession of your baseless position is duly noted and accepted. Have a nice day!
The Law of the Land is reality and no amount of denial on your part is going to change the legal definition that a person is someone who has been naturally born.
Because it would be a crime against humanity to raise taxes for the illegal warmongering invasions of a nation that had done nothing to harm America according to the bizarre illogic of the extreme right.
When 1/2 of the budget is redistribution of wealth and all the same problems are still championed by the Utopian left as if they are not fixed, you tell me what is dumb and what isn't.
Ironic since those Bush jr tax cuts were a "massive redistribution of wealth" right into the offshore accounts of the 1% GOP supporters.
Still under that illusion that taxes are still your property after they are collected. Whatever your elected government decide to do with the taxes collected is up to them, not you. If you don't like it move to a country where they don't have taxes like the United Arab Emirates.
That's supposition. Until that is done, its a good guess as to the outcome but that's all it is. People have a very, very limited understanding of the brain. Even going with the brain aspect, it does not matter. The fertilized egg is just another stage in the life of a person. Unless you can refute that concept, you will never convince me that it is not a person.
This discussion is not about the current state of the legal profession, the law is temporary, it changes with the changing political winds. This discussion is about the state of the baby, it is a philosophical subject.
Philosophy doesn't rule, the law does. And the discussion should be ""How Your Money Goes to Fund Abortion """ Philosophy belongs in the Religion and Philosophy Forum. This is the abortion forum where facts (science,law,etc.) are used.
The legal definition of a person as someone naturally born has been in effect since this nation was founded. Philosophy does not override the Law of the Land.
Do you limit all your discussions to the law? No you do not. You just want to limit yourself to the legal aspect of abortion because you are afraid to discuss abortion. - - - Updated - - - LOL, its amazing how abortionists are terrified of an actual, objective discussion of abortion. That fear is why you are losing the abortion issue.
Theists have lost the "moral" argument against abortion since they deny healthcare and welfare to the "post-born". Theists have lost the LEGAL argument against abortion since they have no standing to deny women their Constitutional rights. So now theists are desperately trying to make abortion into a "philosophical" argument in the vain hope that they can regain some fraction of the ground that they have already lost. Only they crash and burn because they refuse to hold women accountable for 1st degree murder so their philosophy is no sound rational basis. Take this to the Religions and Philosophy forum if you like but don't whine and make fallacious accusations because you cannot come up with a logical basis to support your beliefs that women are not entitled to their Constitutional rights. Yes, you are entitled to your beliefs but you are not allowed to impose them on other people. No amount of philosophy is going to change that reality. Have a nice day!
If you are using the erroneous and ignorant term "abortionists" for Pro-Choicers then , of course, you are mistaken in saying they are terrified of an actual discussion on abortion. If one is not intentionally blind, one could see pages and pages and posts and posts and threads and more threads where Pro-Choicers discuss abortion. No one has hesitated to correct your erroneous posts. If one does not think the world is flat one would not be so blind to that fact.
Although the fertilized egg is just another stage in the development of the human body, you have not proven that a person exists at that point, so your position is supposition (or religion disguised as philosophy). I provide you with a thought experiment that makes it obvious that the rest of the body has no bearing on personhood and you do not refute it... the best you can say is "it does not matter." Explain how you can claim that an organized cluster of cells with absolutely no brain as of yet can be the "person" but when we take Tom's brain out of Tom's body and place it in Bill's body, now Tom's body is not a person (with ALL those body parts you have named before) and Tom is still a person in Bill's body. How do you explain that except that the body is just a life-support system for the mind?
Its a fundamental assumption on your part that brain development is the requirement to be a person. That's supposition. Its a fundamental assumption on my part that its a person at conception. That's also supposition. If there was an actual answer, then there would be no abortion issue.
I note that you still do not address my thought experiment. If (in 1967) doctors had awakened Mr. Louis Washkansky's body and found that it was now inhabited by the person of Denise Darvall, you would have justification to claim the fetus becomes a person as soon as the heart starts beating. Since Mr Washkanski still had his personhood, this proves that the heart (the organ) is absolutely NOT the seat of our personhood. This is not supposition, it is verified fact. It is not supposition that the human body is just a life-support system for the mind. What do you think will happen the first time doctors remove a functional brain from one body and transplant it into a second body (or into a mechanical life-support system)? Do you really think the body "wins" the claim to personhood, or the brain?
OK, let me try another approach. Whether a persons brain can be moved from one body to another successfully and retains the original identity, or the stage of development of the brain, does not matter to me. The fertilized egg is just a stage in the life cycle of a human being, just like the acorn is just a stage in the life cycle of the oak tree. You have decided brain development is the criteria for becoming a person, I reject that approach. You read my posts and reject my approach. You and I have presented opinions, we are at an impasse, unless you have a new concept or presentation to write then this is as far as we can go.
There are tons of statistics that claim that the minimum wage isn't the panacea you claim http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/30/hiking-minimum-wage-wont-stop-poverty-fed-paper.html Personally, I don't have an issue with raising the minimum wage, but it isn't as major of an influence on the poverty rate as single parenthood. I believe legal abortion has had a great impact on our rate of single parents. It is raising an irresponsible generation of men who believe they can just tell their woman to "have an abortion" instead of growing up and raising their children. I've shown charts which clearly show a rise in fatherlessness since Roe V Wade. I've also shown you charts which show that there has been a steady increase in the poverty rate since the passage of Roe V Wade. You mention the economy's impact on poverty, and there are rises and falls due to the economic conditions, but the overall trend is upwards. Why is childhood poverty in our country, now the highest in the developed world? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/
