"Pro-lifers" want to ban abortion....fine...

Well it was a fairly big "what if" proposal. Fairly off the cuff.

You've listed all the flaws of the collectivist learning template for pupils. These are known flaws, but the current system continues to implement them, and I keep wondering why. Doing the same thing while desiring different results is what I call crazy. The collectivist model has failed. Education, like most other things, must be tailored to the individual in order to be successful on a mass scale.

There is never really a victory in a war so long as one side has something they want to continue fighting for. There are religious zealots who would push the envelope so far as to say that you must have children and that you must be married by law, or else!! Consequently, there are equally demented lunatics on the other side saying "you can't afford your kids, so we'll take care of them, don't worry the euthanasia is painless." Radicals are dangerous creatures when in power.

 

Careful, you might be called a misogynist by forgetting the women...

Addressed this already else where I think, loosen adoption standards for income and what not, expand the envelope to foreign countries proofed for human trafficking. Having a child does not cause the world to explode. It can be mighty inconvenient if unprepared though.

 

Well, actually god's alleged son instructed christians to take care of the poor as they will always be here...but , of course, christians will do anything to get out of doing the right thing when it's so much easier(they ARE lazy) to condemn, point fingers, judge as if THEY are god, and ignore their own deep faults........

The time they spend lecturing OTHERS to change their ways would be best spent in a lot of reflection on their own many imperfections....

 

Your words = your ideas = your problem.

Not mine.

Even you must see the humorous irony of this.

I suspect there are other reasons as well.

 

Ya think! LOL! Even you must see the humorous irony of that brilliant commentary on divorce...LOL!

 

There isn't much about divorce I find amusing actually, the whole notion is really quite sad. Two people for whatever reason, have chosen to rend a bond between themselves, little if any good comes out of it.

 

Funny, I never said divorce was amusing....(???)


Lots of good CAN and does come from some divorces( intelligent people don't lump all of one thing in one category).


Usually a divorce comes AFTER the "bond" is broken, if there even is a bond, sometimes there isn't....all divorces, like all marriages, are different...to judge other's marriage, or divorce, is the height of stupidity.

 

...you hearing voices now? Because I never said you did.

Post is a textbook example of a Pathological Pharisee.

 

if you check post # 81


YOU brought up "amusing".


"Pathological Pharisee"? LOL!
I have to hand it to you ,you have more squirm outs, segues, slide arounds and spins than a cutting horse....of course cutting horses have courage so there IS a difference...

 

Bringing up the idea of amusement and saying you find things are amusing are two different things entirely. Hopefully you've learned something today, but I remain skeptical.

A fine piece of bait. But a failed attempt.

 

Your solution is ADOPTION? Adoption is already available to basically anyone who can demonstrate he would be a fit parent. Where do you go from there? Americans adopt about 130,000 children each year, so adoption would not address the problem of so many unwanted children.

Having an abortion does not cause the world to explode. If you think abortion kills a human life, you should promote the only way proven to reduce the abortion rate, affordable birth control for all women, along with comprehensive sex education. There is no reason the government shouldn't provide it, because it's cheaper than welfare and would result in more stable families. That is the best outcome for the country.

 

Interesting, because on the other thread, you said you'd oppose a hypothetical plan that would spend $500 Billion that stopped abortion.

 

If you read my post you'd know the answer - other countries.

Encouraging reckless sexual encounters in the name of taxpayer funded abortion and contraception is not the best outcome for the country. Bridling one's base urges until its proper season is not a character flaw.

This 'cheaper than welfare' argument is getting old. The federal government shouldn't be involved in either as it is not its role. If states want to do it they can, but the federal government should stay the hell out of it since it is an overreach of its powers and infringes on the states.

 

The preposterous plan you put forth was faulty. The reasons to oppose it were numerous.

 

Other countries produce their own adoptive children, they have no need to import from the US. If you're going to continue to promote exporting children, please provide some proof that these children will be wanted somewhere.

Another way of saying "abstinence only." We already know that is a policy that is not workable. Those who believe that making birth control accessible and affordable encourages "reckless sexual encounters", probably also believe that comprehensive sex ed encourages sexual experimentation.

Children living in poverty and growing up in poverty affects all of us. Some states just do not have the resources to handle the problem. It is a duty of government to "promote the general welfare."

 

Are you suggesting that only the US imports children to adopt?

Putting words in my mouth does not help this failed rebuttal. Your way has been tried, and we have repeat customers who simply refuse to learn. These women should be sterilized - they are already killing their own offspring so we should help them not have to.

Not at the expense of another, to shield a simpleton from the consequences of their actions.

 

That may be YOUR answer, but it isn't THE answer. How many children do you think are exported from the US for adoption? The US is the biggest importer of children for adoption. Exporter...not so much.

Prove that taxpayer funded contraception promotes sexual activity. Studies show it does not.

http://newyorksociologist.org/09/Zheng09.pdf

I didn't advocate free abortions, only affordable birth control.

No, it isn't, but it is delusional to think that telling people to "bridle their base urges" will necessarily have that result. Besides, we are talking about married women, too. How many do you think will abstain because there is no contraception in the house, especially when women are dominated by their partners?

Sorry if you are getting tired of hearing about reality. If the role of the government is to keep us safe, that should apply to all things that endanger individuals and society. It is not the role of government, neither state nor federal, to enforce traditional Christian doctrines.

 

I stated that IF a hypothetical $500 Billion (Federal) plan guarenteed an end to abortion....would you support it. You said no.

Ergo, even hypothetically, you "put a price on life". As the old joke goes "We know what you are now...now it's just a matter of negotiating the price". What if I said it was a paltry MILLION dollars in Federal money.....a $1M plan, which would make it so women would reject having an abortion and instead carry the pregnancy to term, keeping it or putting it up for adoption....would you support such a plan, at a miniscule price-tag?

 

A sociology study, based in china, and you're applying the findings in America? Excuse me while I laugh hysterically for a while....Bwahahahah!!

Children are the natural product of sex, however it is to be noted that sex is not solely for the creation of children. As for being dominated, well unless it is rape it is voluntary. Married people should buy their own birth control. They buy their own gasoline for their car do they not? I bridled my base urges at the guidance of my parents - seemed to work for me and many others I know. Conversely, those who didn't have such marvelous parents didn't fair so well.

Comes down to parenting, and male approval.

If the governments role is to keep you safe then they have failed miserably on all levels of society. People trip and fall all the time down stairs. People must learn to care for themselves in every way they can, because the government is naturally inept in 'keeping safe' that which it doesn't care about, namely the peasantry.

 

I suppose this is where I am suppose to jump on it right? Because it is such a great deal?

Sir Effington says no. The concept is the same. No matter how much you mutilate your original argument. Forcibly extracting money to pay for another jackwagon's screw-up is wrong. Because it infringes on freedom.

I don't think you understand how much freedom means to me.

Now if such a tax was voluntary, now we're talking sense... even your ridiculous 500 billion dollar plan would be considered were it optional.

 

""""Comes down to parenting, and male approval.""""



LOL! That is SO typical of righties/anti-Freedom Anti-Choicers...it's all about THEM...


Got shocking news for ya...even good parents have normal kids...kids that have sex before they're married...been doin' it since humans started doin' it...And it doesn't make the parents bad and it doesn't make the kids evil....just normal...



AND, intelligent women don't really give a rat's patoot about "male approval"...OMYGAWD! What century are YOU living in???

Trying to claw your way back to the early 20th century?? How frustrating for you...LOL!

 

"""I don't think you understand how much freedom means to me.""""


So only YOUR freedom counts?

So only YOUR freedom is important?

But you don't think women's freedom is important to them....or is important at all....?

 

Shhh...the grown-ups are talking.

 

Can't answer ? didn't think so....


Do you really think no one can see through your non-answers???

 

Not what was stated.

Freedom for all is important. Regardless of gender.