Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2018, 01:28:57 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Print
Author Topic: The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill  (Read 18902 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2005, 11:30:09 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2005, 11:31:34 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,693
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2005, 11:33:55 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2005, 11:35:57 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2005, 11:39:56 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2005, 11:40:46 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2005, 11:43:13 pm »

For that matter, we once again see libertarianism reduced to its most basic points: greed and rampid individualism.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2005, 11:44:34 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2005, 11:46:24 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

I just have to laugh when people say things like "Do it with your own money".
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2005, 11:47:39 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

I just have to laugh when people say things like "Do it with your own money".

Yes, it is apparently a laughable concept that people pay for their own causes and not do so off the work of the unwilling.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2005, 11:50:30 pm »

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

I just have to laugh when people say things like "Do it with your own money".

Yes, it is apparently a laughable concept that people pay for their own causes and not do so off the work of the unwilling.

It is laughable when people can't spare a few bucks to help out those who really need it.  Especially in this case.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2005, 11:51:05 pm »

Guess you need that other latte, though.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2005, 11:55:08 pm »

For that matter, we once again see libertarianism reduced to its most basic points: greed and rampid individualism.

1. Greed and self-interest are not necessarily the same. I feel it's in my self-interest that I don't take what isn't mine - I'm not greedy, what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I'm more than happy to keep only what I've earned with my labor, not a penny more do I seek. If I start taking what isn't mine for my own causes, it only becomes a matter of time when someone starts taking what's mine for theirs. Don't believe me, well here's a novel concept for you - publicly funded abortions. This works both ways, you know.

2. Apparently individualism is bad now. Collectivism it is then - we live for the whole, the individual doesn't matter. And apparently rampid is a word.

It is laughable when people can't spare a few bucks to help out those who really need it.  Especially in this case.

I give to charity. I give to those whom I feel I need it and deserve it, and I give what I feel is necessary, not a penny more. And it's hardly 'sparing' a few bucks when the money is taken from people forcibly. This bill, like all welfare, is forced charity - which is a contradiction.

Guess you need that other latte, though.

I don't drink latte, don't be a jackass. And can you please sum up your points in a single post.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2005, 12:01:24 am »

For that matter, we once again see libertarianism reduced to its most basic points: greed and rampid individualism.

1. Greed and self-interest are not necessarily the same. I feel it's in my self-interest that I don't take what isn't mine - I'm not greedy, what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I'm more than happy to keep only what I've earned with my labor, not a penny more do I seek. If I start taking what isn't mine for my own causes, it only becomes a matter of time when someone starts taking what's mine for theirs. Don't believe me, well here's a novel concept for you - publicly funded abortions. This works both ways, you know.

Not more of this Ann Rand crap, please.  I've had enough from KEmp.


Quote
2. Apparently individualism is bad now. Collectivism it is then - we live for the whole, the individual doesn't matter. And apparently rampid is a word.

Typical of most extremeists, you see only one extreme or the other.  The word I was going for was "rampant" sorry I didn't match your standards.  The individual matters, but so does the community.  The community matters very much.  That is why I dispise Libertarianism above all political ideologies.

It is laughable when people can't spare a few bucks to help out those who really need it.  Especially in this case.

I give to charity. I give to those whom I feel I need it and deserve it, and I give what I feel is necessary, not a penny more. And it's hardly 'sparing' a few bucks when the money is taken from people forcibly. This bill, like all welfare, is forced charity - which is a contradiction.
Quote

The learned gentleman is entitled to his opinion, no matter what I think of it, which isn't much on this issue to be honest.

Guess you need that other latte, though.

I don't drink latte, don't be a jackass. And can you please sum up your points in a single post.
Quote

Okay, Bud Light then.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2005, 12:11:51 am »

It would seem to me that this bill would pretty much pay for itself if it works, in the long run.  All of the women who fit the description of this bill would otherwise have two options: get an abortion, or have the child and not have nearly enough money to raise the child with.  The first option is obviously not one we'd want to promote, although it should be an option, but women who can't bring themselves to abort the child would be stuck with the second option.  Anyone who would do that would likely find it extremely hard to be a functioning, capable member of society and would probably have to go on welfare or other social programs.  Consequently, the child would probably not have a very good upbringing, and would have a much higher probability of turning out as the mother did, and then that child's children would be the same, and so on.

On the other hand, if the taxpayers instead chipped in what will be roughly $6/taxpayer, they could break this vicious cycle and enable this mother and her offspring to be functioning members of society.  This will enable them to get good employment, and thus become tax-paying citizens themselves who give input into the economy, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

No man is an island; there are some cases where it simply does not work to attempt to work purely with the money of those who decide to donate out of their own volition.  It's in everyone's benefit, in the long run, that these mothers not be forced to deal with it purely on their own.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2005, 12:13:45 am »

Regarding my idea of the amendment about birth control, I still can't think of anything other than having all public schools teach about birth control along with abstinence, and I'm afraid that that would be too regulationistic.  Anyone have any other ideas?
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2005, 12:17:29 am »

It would seem to me that this bill would pretty much pay for itself if it works, in the long run.  All of the women who fit the description of this bill would otherwise have two options: get an abortion, or have the child and not have nearly enough money to raise the child with.  The first option is obviously not one we'd want to promote, although it should be an option, but women who can't bring themselves to abort the child would be stuck with the second option.  Anyone who would do that would likely find it extremely hard to be a functioning, capable member of society and would probably have to go on welfare or other social programs.  Consequently, the child would probably not have a very good upbringing, and would have a much higher probability of turning out as the mother did, and then that child's children would be the same, and so on.

On the other hand, if the taxpayers instead chipped in what will be roughly $6/taxpayer, they could break this vicious cycle and enable this mother and her offspring to be functioning members of society.  This will enable them to get good employment, and thus become tax-paying citizens themselves who give input into the economy, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

No man is an island; there are some cases where it simply does not work to attempt to work purely with the money of those who decide to donate out of their own volition.  It's in everyone's benefit, in the long run, that these mothers not be forced to deal with it purely on their own.

Of course it would, but many are far to short sighted to understand that.  It is "socialism", as though that word were all bad and so easily definded.

At anyrate, you are correct, Gabu, in 20 years the benefits to our economy would make this all well worth it, but that will still offend some.  Oh well, to Hell with them.

Senator Bono asked me if I would be willing to explain to others why their hard earned tax dollars were going into this bill.

I told him, "Yes, I be more than willing to.  In fact, I would walk up to thier door.  Pound on it, and tell them right on thier dorrstep why this was so important.  And if it costs me thier support or their vote... Then f**k 'em".

I said that, in those exact words, and I stand by it.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2005, 12:17:50 am »

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

Never read Ayn Rand, actually. Still, I'll play your game - you think this is important for the community. Well, I think it will damage the community. Here's how:

Your bill, if it's intents are met, will result in more children being born to unwed mothers. It is a statistical fact that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be criminals. Thusly, it logically follows that there will likely be more criminals, and more murder along with that. Also, it follows that these sorts will get girls pregant and walk out as well, thusly creating a cycle. More crime is bad for the community.

And, since tax cuts will probably have to be roled back to pay for this(or deficits will increase, still bad), the economy will likely suffer some. A bad economy is bad for the community.


And once again I state that by condoning the use of taxpayer money for your personal moral crusade, you do open up the prospect of others using taxpayer money(which includes yours) to projects that you will not approve of - i.e. publicly funded abortion and the like. And guess what, it will be done in the name of the community. It always is done for some 'common good'.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2005, 12:20:30 am »

It would seem to me that this bill would pretty much pay for itself if it works, in the long run.  All of the women who fit the description of this bill would otherwise have two options: get an abortion, or have the child and not have nearly enough money to raise the child with.  The first option is obviously not one we'd want to promote, although it should be an option, but women who can't bring themselves to abort the child would be stuck with the second option.  Anyone who would do that would likely find it extremely hard to be a functioning, capable member of society and would probably have to go on welfare or other social programs.  Consequently, the child would probably not have a very good upbringing, and would have a much higher probability of turning out as the mother did, and then that child's children would be the same, and so on.

On the other hand, if the taxpayers instead chipped in what will be roughly $6/taxpayer, they could break this vicious cycle and enable this mother and her offspring to be functioning members of society.  This will enable them to get good employment, and thus become tax-paying citizens themselves who give input into the economy, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

No man is an island; there are some cases where it simply does not work to attempt to work purely with the money of those who decide to donate out of their own volition.  It's in everyone's benefit, in the long run, that these mothers not be forced to deal with it purely on their own.

Gabu, you do realize that not all the mothers who enter this program will go to college. I don't see how this will change must as far as their situation. Sure, some might, but I think I can safely say most won't. I think that those who enter will come to depend on the program, and then suddenly get dropped out of it 5 years in, which makes the problem worse.

ADD - 'everyone's benefit'? Thusly it's to my benefit. But how did you determine it's to my benefit? You don't necessarily know my interests, so how can you really determine it is to my benefit? Don't I know what's in my benefit far better than you?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2005, 12:23:27 am by S.E. Magistrate John Dibble »Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2005, 12:20:54 am »

Regarding my idea of the amendment about birth control, I still can't think of anything other than having all public schools teach about birth control along with abstinence, and I'm afraid that that would be too regulationistic.  Anyone have any other ideas?

Problem is, Gabu, some people hate abstinence education and some hate sex education.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2005, 12:22:51 am »

Regarding my idea of the amendment about birth control, I still can't think of anything other than having all public schools teach about birth control along with abstinence, and I'm afraid that that would be too regulationistic.  Anyone have any other ideas?

Problem is, Gabu, some people hate abstinence education and some hate sex education.

Yes, I know; that's why I want to think of something else, because I don't think that'll fly very well.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2005, 12:31:18 am »

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

As I said, extremeists see the world in extremes.  Everything social program is communism.  Whatever, I feel sad for you if you really believe that.

Quote
Never read Ayn Rand, actually. Still, I'll play your game - you think this is important for the community. Well, I think it will damage the community. Here's how:

Really? Because you sound just like her.


Quote
Your bill, if it's intents are met, will result in more children being born to unwed mothers.

Is this more crap about how more teens are going to want to get pregnant because of this, or are you finally admitting that this bill is going to say lives?


Quote
It is a statistical fact that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be criminals. Thusly, it logically follows that there will likely be more criminals, and more murder along with that. Also, it follows that these sorts will get girls pregant and walk out as well, thusly creating a cycle. More crime is bad for the community.

Funny, I was born to an unwed mother.  I guess you could say that that is why I am so interested in this topic.  Am I, in your opinion, a criminal.  I must be, if I am trying to take away your money and send it to Washington.


Quote
And, since tax cuts will probably have to be roled back to pay for this(or deficits will increase, still bad), the economy will likely suffer some. A bad economy is bad for the community.

I say again, if we need to roll back the tax cut a bit it would equal about 0.001% of the tax cut.  And you once again ignore the fact that this is an investment in the future of this country and will increase the standard of living for these people.


Quote
And once again I state that by condoning the use of taxpayer money for your personal moral crusade, you do open up the prospect of others using taxpayer money(which includes yours) to projects that you will not approve of - i.e. publicly funded abortion and the like. And guess what, it will be done in the name of the community. It always is done for some 'common good'.

Laughable.  If you don't believe that human life and dignity are moral principles that trancend all moral fiber, then you are barely fit to live.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2005, 12:59:41 am »

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

As I said, extremeists see the world in extremes.  Everything social program is communism.  Whatever, I feel sad for you if you really believe that.

YES OR NO. You stated you despise libertarianism over ALL other political ideologies.

If yes, then you despise it over communism, facism, nazism, ect. Don't blame me for your own words.

Quote
Quote
Your bill, if it's intents are met, will result in more children being born to unwed mothers.

Is this more crap about how more teens are going to want to get pregnant because of this, or are you finally admitting that this bill is going to say lives?

I said IF. Simple logic - more people will be born if your bill succeeds in stopping some abortions. That implies nothing more.

Quote
Quote
It is a statistical fact that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be criminals. Thusly, it logically follows that there will likely be more criminals, and more murder along with that. Also, it follows that these sorts will get girls pregant and walk out as well, thusly creating a cycle. More crime is bad for the community.

Funny, I was born to an unwed mother.  I guess you could say that that is why I am so interested in this topic.  Am I, in your opinion, a criminal.  I must be, if I am trying to take away your money and send it to Washington.

'More likely' does not imply 'all'. Serioulsy, you don't seem to understand basic logic. Statistics show that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to turn to crime - why? Because unwed mothers are more likely to be irresponsible(they got pregnant out of marriage, an irresponsible act), and thusly their kids will not be taught properly. Of course, once again 'more likely' does not imply 'all' as you seem to believe. It's my belief that abortion shows irresponsibility - I imagine you agree - so following this train of thought, it is logical to assume that those whom you might convince to go with this program instead of abortion will have a higher chance of being irresponsible people, and therefore their kids will not get a decent upbringing, and will be more likely to turn to crime.

Quote
Quote
And, since tax cuts will probably have to be roled back to pay for this(or deficits will increase, still bad), the economy will likely suffer some. A bad economy is bad for the community.

I say again, if we need to roll back the tax cut a bit it would equal about 0.001% of the tax cut.  And you once again ignore the fact that this is an investment in the future of this country and will increase the standard of living for these people.

It only increases the standard of living in your mind. I do not believe it does.

Quote
Quote
And once again I state that by condoning the use of taxpayer money for your personal moral crusade, you do open up the prospect of others using taxpayer money(which includes yours) to projects that you will not approve of - i.e. publicly funded abortion and the like. And guess what, it will be done in the name of the community. It always is done for some 'common good'.

Laughable.  If you don't believe that human life and dignity are moral principles that trancend all moral fiber, then you are barely fit to live.

Once again - not all people believe that abortion is murder. I don't like abortion, but I don't hold that it is murder. I value human life, but I'm not exactly convinced that a fetus in early development is 'human' in the same sense that I am.

And all that one does not require money to live with dignity. Dignity is attained through acting in a dignified way.

As I said, I respect my fellow man. I don't seek to use what is his when he does not consent. If respecting the rights of my fellow man makes me unfit to live, then so be it.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2005, 01:14:18 am »

Supersoulty, if you want, respond to my last post, but I will not respond back. I've made my arguments against this bill, you've made yours for it. That's enough. This is not the place to debate ideology.
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,049


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2005, 02:19:28 am »

I counted a total of 13 typos/spelling errors in this bill. Whilst I undoubtedly look like a pedant for doing this, could people please read over legislation and/or run it through a spell checker before they propose it, since, if it passes it does actually have to become law and sit on the Statute thread for all time.

I am also compelled to ask why the bill doesn't extend to those mothers who live with female partners. Whilst its not terribly common, it does nonetheless happen.

I'n not sure how Section 3 clause e is supposed to work and seems to me to be a bizarre legislative requirement. I don't pretend to know much about how US healthcare works so please humour me if I screw up.

I was under the impression that a good number of OBGYNs and abortion clinics are privately run; Legislatively requiring them to have a pamphlet with the threat of fines seems to be a bit over the top. I am probably correct in thinking that they receive federal funding for their work; The general way to compulse private organisations to carry the pamphlet is to say they have to carry it qualify for federal funding.

The government fining social security offices? Doesn't the government already own the social security offices? I wonder what happens when the government fines the government.

Section 3 clause c: Is there anyway for her to get the child back longer term? Also what the hell is "violating the spirit of the program", because whilst I know what you are trying to get at, thats not the way the law works.

Beyond the above hair-splitting points, I have little to no ideological objection to the bill.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines