It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The hypocrisy of the pro-life argument

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Agartha
I am pro choice because I rater protect a life that is already living and because women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and make their own decisions, seeing they are the ones that have to live with it.


So, you're flat-out pro-choice just because of a minority of the instances of why people have abortions?

You must note that I've mentioned more than once in this thread that I'm against elective abortions--abortions that are necessary for the life of the mother are completely different. Hell, I even enter into the pro-choice category when it comes to rape pregnancies, but I do so semi-reluctantly, knowing the possible mental and emotional impacts having a baby in those instances can have.

But the bottom line for me is this: If the abortion is elective for any reasons other than stated here, I must stand up for that baby's right to life.

And believe me, I'm still a bit torn on the rape pregnancies, but that's where my empathetic nature comes in for the woman, and since the intercourse that produced the baby was not consensual, the pregnancy certainly isn't the fault of the woman's choice to have sex.

Thanks for at least asking about my stance on the issue--too many on here are making baseless assumptions.

As for your questions about poverty, we in this nation have families, friends, social programs, and many other charitable places that can help ease the "burden" of raising a child in poverty. If the choice is raise the child in poverty or kill it before it has a chance at life, I vote for poverty. But then again, I'm the guy you see with his family providing a hot meal for the homeless and the impoverished at my own expense, serving them all personally and not wanting a thanks in return, so maybe I just have a skewed view of the kindness of strangers in a community to help those in need. We donate many, many items in lieu of selling them, in hopes that they find their way into homes who truly need them (and no, I don't donate to the Goodwill...I don't like their policies there).

Seriously, maybe this is why I put my reliance and faith into local communities to help out those in need instead of the government or instead of using poverty as an excuse.

Maybe I live my life as an anomaly and the rest of the world sucks at doing their part, but I'm not going to let that be used as an excuse to kill helpless human beings.


I consider myself prolife. I would do everything possible to convince someone I know to not have an abortion. However the reality is I believe in free will. I don't control the world and restricting abortions has no correlation to people not having them. Making them illegal does nothing to stop them it only makes things worse. The only thing to do is persuade and educate the people you know and do community out reach. It doesn't make sense to legislate morality and it has never worked. Its the blessing curse of freedom. I fully understand the prolife argument and agree mostly with it. However it is disgusting how some prolifers represent their faith which is supposed to be about love and compassion.

The best we can do is have the medical and science field declare when the brain is active and classify that as life. Anything after is murder without medical necessity.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, so I looked directly at the study (I can do without looking at all of the other links), and it does not, in any way, shape, or form, have any evidence to support the claims--all tabs direct you to the same, summarized, incomplete information. There is one sentence that says:

The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws.


It doesn't say by how much, in which subregions of which areas, etc...you know, pertinent data for the discerning mind.

Anyhoo, I must say that this "study" has about as much substance as your original link to a story about abstinence classes does, at least as it pertains to proof that areas with more "liberal" abortion laws have lower abortions.

edit on 16-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I don't control the world and restricting abortions has no correlation to people not having them. Making them illegal does nothing to stop them it only makes things worse. The only thing to do is persuade and educate the people you know and do community out reach. It doesn't make sense to legislate morality and it has never worked.


Honestly, I'm not advocating a law that directly prohibits abortion, per se, but I'm advocating amending the existing laws of murder to include elective killing of unborn children (barring any medical necessity for the life of the mother or a rape incident resulting in pregnancy...but rape is hard to prove, too).

It's not about legislating morality--I'm tired of hearing that cliché--it's about recognizing that, in America, at least, we have a right to life until we do something intentional that forfeits that right because of the consequence of breaking a law (in some states). An unborn human has done nothing intentional to forfeit that right. It's not about morality for me, although most people opposed to my position will turn it into that.


The best we can do is have the medical and science field declare when the brain is active and classify that as life. Anything after is murder without medical necessity.


That would be nice, but they can't even agree upon the philosophy that brain activity = life. And, I'm not sure that I would agree with that assessment, either, because there's not enough hard evidence to make such a conclusion.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'd love it if they would provide some actual numbers, like how many hospital admissions per year are suspected of being the result of a botched abortion.


Well why didn't you click on the study link and look at the actual study?


Method

We used the standard WHO definition of unsafe abortions. Safe abortion estimates were based largely on official statistics and nationally representative surveys. Unsafe abortion estimates were based primarily on information from published studies, hospital records, and surveys of women. We used additional sources and systematic approaches to make corrections and projections as needed where data were misreported, incomplete, or from earlier years. We assessed trends in abortion incidence using rates developed for 1995, 2003, and 2008 with the same methodology. We used linear regression models to explore the association of the legal status of abortion with the abortion rate across subregions of the world in 2008.



Findings

The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p less than 0·05).



Interpretation

The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals.


link

If that's not enough, just register with the Lancet and look at the full study for free.


Interviews with family planning experts? Nah, no chance any of those folks would seek to inflate the numbers.

pfft surveys... ha.


I'm pretty sure that family planning experts in a countries where abortion is illegal operate a TAD different than the ones in this country or other countries where abortion is legal.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

All you have to do is register with the lancet and you can view more of the study beyond just the Abstract. Though it makes sense why you don't want to actually do any real research on the topic and just handwave the study away because you can only view the Abstract. I registered with the Lancet and I can see TONS of information about the study. Case in point, this:


Unsafe abortions
The compilation of studies and data on unsafe abortion is an ongoing activity of WHO's Special Programme in Human Reproduction. To estimate abortion incidence, we gathered information from published and unpublished sources obtained from websites of national authorities and non-governmental organisations, data reported to WHO Headquarters and Regional Offices, searches of library databases, and through personal contacts with researchers worldwide. We gave preference to national estimates published in peer-reviewed journals or other reports using widely accepted methodologies; when these reports were absent, we prioritised nationally representative data, mainly hospitalisation records. In the absence of national data, we adjusted information from subnational studies as needed to provide national estimates based on each study's selection criteria. We applied estimates for years other than 2008 to 2008 when there was no evidence to suggest changes in abortion levels. More national-level data were available to inform the estimates for 2008 than for 1995 or 2003, especially for western Asia, middle Africa, and central America, allowing for more accurate estimates for those subregions in 2008.

For countries with available data on numbers of women admitted to hospital for complications from induced and spontaneous abortions, we computed unsafe abortion incidence using a widely used technique that entails (1) subtraction of the likely number of spontaneous abortion cases, and (2) application of an adjustment factor to account for the estimated number of women having abortions who do not need or do not receive treatment. For several countries, published adjustment factors derived from surveys of knowledgeable professionals are available.22 For others, the factor was assumed to be the same as that in a country with a similar abortion law and health-care infrastructure and a known adjustment factor (webappendix).

As already noted, surveys of women generally underestimate abortion incidence because a large proportion of women do not report their abortions. Under-reporting is even greater in countries with restrictive laws than in countries with liberal laws. Studies indicate that at most half of women in countries with restrictive abortion laws report their abortions, and we used this minimum adjustment for survey-based estimates (webappendix).

For 11 countries representing 5% of women of reproductive age living where abortions are unsafe, we adjusted data from subnational studies to yield national estimates by weighting the results to match the rural and urban composition of the country. A few small countries for which no information was available were assumed to have the same abortion rate as other countries in the region with similar abortion laws, fertility and contraceptive use, or the average rate of other countries in the region to which they belong.

edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: luthier
I don't control the world and restricting abortions has no correlation to people not having them. Making them illegal does nothing to stop them it only makes things worse. The only thing to do is persuade and educate the people you know and do community out reach. It doesn't make sense to legislate morality and it has never worked.


Honestly, I'm not advocating a law that directly prohibits abortion, per se, but I'm advocating amending the existing laws of murder to include elective killing of unborn children (barring any medical necessity for the life of the mother or a rape incident resulting in pregnancy...but rape is hard to prove, too).

It's not about legislating morality--I'm tired of hearing that cliché--it's about recognizing that, in America, at least, we have a right to life until we do something intentional that forfeits that right because of the consequence of breaking a law (in some states). An unborn human has done nothing intentional to forfeit that right. It's not about morality for me, although most people opposed to my position will turn it into that.


The best we can do is have the medical and science field declare when the brain is active and classify that as life. Anything after is murder without medical necessity.


That would be nice, but they can't even agree upon the philosophy that brain activity = life. And, I'm not sure that I would agree with that assessment, either, because there's not enough hard evidence to make such a conclusion.


So as long as everybody has the same belief as you? Not everyone does. The religious argument is the weakest one. Especially in a society where the population does not believe the same thing.

Your approach will NEVER work. If it did it would end up killing more teenage girls anyway. I don't think its a good trade off to kill mom instead of the baby.


There used to be Christians with a history of understanding philosophy and theological arguments. Its much easier to understand the fallacy of ones private beliefs or thoughts when you understand valid and logical arguments.

You can be prolife and be a realist as well. Christianity is on its way out in the us and Europe. Its because of rigid beliefs without logic and a lack of reality. Maybe your efforts would be better used actually trying to educate and compassionately persuade rather than judge which Christianity denounces.

The laws wont change from a religious argument. It has to be rational.
edit on 16-7-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just find those statistics to be very intriguing, especially if they're accurate. I mean just think of all the other aspects of our social structure we could apply this methodology to.

We could lower the murder rate by legalizing murder.

Hell maybe we could end discrimination by removing anti-discrimination laws.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I know you are being sarcastic (at least partially), but you are right though. Statistical analysis is a good way to view trends and see what does and doesn't work. But you are right, they have to be collected right. If we could produce enough evidence to show that legalizing murder reduces the murder rate, at the very least it IS worth checking out to see if reality plays out the way theory predicts.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



What is your point? Asexuals can't learn about sex?


No. My point is that not everyone wants to have sex.



Not everyone does. This isn't a fantasy world were just because YOU can do it, that means that everyone should or even WANTS to do that. The fact is that teenagers WILL have sex. It may not have been you, your kids, or anyone you know, but it IS happening. And these kids deserve to have proper education on it.


This also isn't a fantasy world where people are mysteriously compelled to have sexual intercourse by forces outside of their control, either. Sending people, especially young, impressionable ones, the message that "yup, you're just gonna have sex, nothing you can do about it" is not the right way to go about addressing the issue. Understand, I'm not arguing against comprehensive sexual education here, I'm arguing against telling people that they have no choice or giving them the impression that it's abnormal or unhealthy to not have sex. Some people don't want to engage in sexual intercourse. Let's not vilify them.



I have no idea. Probably not, but I can tell you this, MOST pro-choicers are also pro-sex education. Why are you disturbed about a stranger teaching sex ed? Who cares? It's just sex.


Perhaps because I find this "everybody does it all the time" attitude worrying, not the least because I can see how that attitude of "everybody should be able to screw everybody" can contribute to rape culture.



If you don't like what he is saying, then teach your kid on your own time. Maybe if you didn't spend most of your childhood repressing sex you wouldn't have this weird stigma about it.


Hahahaha. I don't have a weird stigma about it. I grew up on a farm, so I know more about the reproductive systems of mammals than most people.




If it works, you could at LEAST give it a try. Though, I guess that depends on what is more important to you, do you want a safer society or do you want to punish the guilty? Keep in mind, the way reality works, you can't have both. Me, I'd rather we had a safer society than punish the guilty.


No, reality doesn't work that way. If it did, then we should get rid of all laws. And that's stupid.



Correlation may not equal causation, but we have MORE than enough evidence showing that bans don't result in the rates of occurrence going down. Like I linked in the op, the war on drugs and prohibition are both PRIME candidates to show the same thing. Bans DON'T work. No matter how much you want to BELIEVE they work, they'll just never work. They just create crime.


So you're advocating for anarchy then...
Bans do, in fact, work, but it depends on the issue.



Have you been an orphan? Raised in the state system? How would you know if that life is better than being dead? I'm sure there are more than a few orphans who would disagree with you, but they are probably already dead from committing suicide.


So why abort them? Let them choose whether they live or die on their own terms.



Making abortion illegal, IF people listened to you, would mean we'd just get MORE of these kids in the already overcrowded system. This guarantees an even WORSE quality of life, because it's not like conservatives like paying taxes or anything to fund these social programs...


If people listened to me, we'd ban abortion, pay $100 bucks for each unwanted kid, and put them through our super soldier program. Within 40 years, we'd be able to slash the defense budget dramatically because we wouldn't have to pay most of our soldiers until they retired. And they'd be the best soldiers ever, because they would be trained to kill from their childhood and they would owe the state everything.



Then maybe you should change your stance, because you are just proposing to create more problems that you will turn around and not want to pay to fix.


Dude. Ancient cultures never paid to fix these sorts of problems. Why should we? We do it because it's a scam to get more money.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
No. My point is that not everyone wants to have sex.


So, that doesn't mean they can't learn about it. More knowledge is always a good thing. Asexuals are also less numerous than even the homosexual community. Using them as a reason to not teach sexual education is stupid. That's like saying we shouldn't look for a cure for a disease because a small percentage of the population is immune to it.


This also isn't a fantasy world where people are mysteriously compelled to have sexual intercourse by forces outside of their control, either. Sending people, especially young, impressionable ones, the message that "yup, you're just gonna have sex, nothing you can do about it" is not the right way to go about addressing the issue. Understand, I'm not arguing against comprehensive sexual education here, I'm arguing against telling people that they have no choice or giving them the impression that it's abnormal or unhealthy to not have sex. Some people don't want to engage in sexual intercourse. Let's not vilify them.


Educating people about sex isn't doing that. Educating people about sex tells them their options in case they want to pursue that activity. And no one is vilifying the abstinent. Besides, it is usually the abstinent that vilifies the sexually active anyways.


Perhaps because I find this "everybody does it all the time" attitude worrying, not the least because I can see how that attitude of "everybody should be able to screw everybody" can contribute to rape culture.


Bull#! Proper sex education would teach people about consent when it comes to sex.


Hahahaha. I don't have a weird stigma about it. I grew up on a farm, so I know more about the reproductive systems of mammals than most people.


Apparently not humans if you believe that a realistic solution to sex is to just pretend like you can tell teenagers not to do it and suddenly all of them will listen to you.


No, reality doesn't work that way. If it did, then we should get rid of all laws. And that's stupid.


Well no one has proven that legalizing murder would reduce the murder rate, so we can't know the answer to this anyways.


So you're advocating for anarchy then...
Bans do, in fact, work, but it depends on the issue.


I just want the safest society. Sometimes you have to lock some troublemakers up to create a safer society.



Have you been an orphan? Raised in the state system? How would you know if that life is better than being dead? I'm sure there are more than a few orphans who would disagree with you, but they are probably already dead from committing suicide.


So why abort them? Let them choose whether they live or die on their own terms.


If people listened to me, we'd ban abortion, pay $100 bucks for each unwanted kid, and put them through our super soldier program. Within 40 years, we'd be able to slash the defense budget dramatically because we wouldn't have to pay most of our soldiers until they retired. And they'd be the best soldiers ever, because they would be trained to kill from their childhood and they would owe the state everything.


That sounds downright awful, plus who is going to train these "super soldiers"? Who is going to pay for this program? Do you know how much it costs to put a NORMAL soldier through basic training? According to this post from the official Army forum, it's $70,000. Basic Training is only 9 weeks.


Dude. Ancient cultures never paid to fix these sorts of problems. Why should we? We do it because it's a scam to get more money.


Ancient cultures weren't as concerned with a society's social welfare either. They just let the people unable to take care of themselves or their children die and were done with it. Can't afford your debt? There's debtors prison for you. So if you want to go back to the times where someone was likely to starve to death on the streets because he couldn't afford any food, then yea let's compare ancient cultures to today's cultures. I would have thought we were beyond that.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


So, you're flat-out pro-choice just because of a minority of the instances of why people have abortions?



I am pro-choice because of all the reasons women may have. Let me say it this way: you stop a young poor girl from having an abortion three things could happen, she may have an illegal abortion and die as a result, she may have the child and give it up or she may raise an unwanted child. All three scenarios are horrible, most of the time those unwanted children live a short life suffering. You are not going to help her raise that child, so why should she do what you want her to do? It's her body, her actions, her life, her decisions.

Whether we like it or not, forcing a woman to have a child is a sign of oppression.


edit on 16-7-2015 by Agartha because: Spelling.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



So, that doesn't mean they can't learn about it. More knowledge is always a good thing. Asexuals are also less numerous than even the homosexual community. Using them as a reason to not teach sexual education is stupid. That's like saying we shouldn't look for a cure for a disease because a small percentage of the population is immune to it.


I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying you were wrong when you insisted that all teenagers wanted to have sex. Which you did.



Bull#! Proper sex education would teach people about consent when it comes to sex.


I agree. But there's what people teach, and then there's what other people get out of it. Perhaps, though, you just have more faith in government education than I do




Apparently not humans if you believe that a realistic solution to sex is to just pretend like you can tell teenagers not to do it and suddenly all of them will listen to you.


I...don't recall arguing that. I said that your claim that all teenagers had sex or wanted to have sex was false. But telling teenagers not to have sex isn't a bad idea. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about it: link

Note that Planned Parenthood explicitly states that abstinence through the teenage years and into the 20s tends to confer certain health benefits. If you really want a safe society, you WOULD tell teenagers not to do it. Note well: that doesn't mean you have to keep them ignorant about sex.



Well no one has proven that legalizing murder would reduce the murder rate, so we can't know the answer to this anyways.


Yup. But you argued that bans never worked, so clearly you think it would.



I just want the safest society. Sometimes you have to lock some troublemakers up to create a safer society.


Safest for whom? Clearly not for the troublemakers you've just locked up. A safe society is usually a utopian mirage. Almost everything done in the name of safety always eats away at something else important.
Besides, if we really wanted to be safe in the US we'd get rid of cars, cigarettes and booze. And sex. People don't want to be safe. They want to enjoy life.



That sounds downright awful, plus who is going to train these "super soldiers"? Who is going to pay for this program? Do you know how much it costs to put a NORMAL soldier through basic training? According to this post from the official Army forum, it's $70,000. Basic Training is only 9 weeks.


Consider it an investment. We'll save money in the long run by saving billions on soldier's benefits.
Of course, we'll give these soldiers the chance to leave when they're 18 if they want to, and we'll pay them a stipend when they age out. But it will be much less expensive than paying for their salaries their entire lives.

And it might sound downright awful, but I'm sure they'll prefer it to being dead. And if they don't, like you said, they can always commit suicide, or muster out at 18.
Plus, they will literally be the best soldiers in the world. It would be totally awesome. What could go wrong?



Ancient cultures weren't as concerned with a society's social welfare either. They just let the people unable to take care of themselves or their children die and were done with it.


That's not true. Ancient cultures often lived in familial units that took care of each other.



Can't afford your debt? There's debtors prison for you.


Or debt enslavement.



So if you want to go back to the times where someone was likely to starve to death on the streets because he couldn't afford any food, then yea let's compare ancient cultures to today's cultures. I would have thought we were beyond that.


Meh. Ancient cultures kinda rocked. We wouldn't have anything we have today if it wasn't for the Romans.
In seriousness, though, I think we spend so much money on social services because it's a system rigged to get money, not to take care of people. It's my understanding that the German system (for example) is much more efficient than the US system, so why don't we have that? Because people are gaming the system, that's why.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then do us all a damn favor and paste the entire thing into this thread--you shouldn't expect people to register with a site just to view the information that you claim supports your theory, then ignorantly accuse them of not being willing to do any "real research" into the topic when you yourself don't take the necessary steps to provide the information necessary to prove your point.

The onus to prove your point lies in you, not others to undertake "real research" to see if you're telling the truth, or a study that you improperly link to in your OP has conclusions that are appropriate to the data and the data collection process.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
So as long as everybody has the same belief as you? Not everyone does. The religious argument is the weakest one. Especially in a society where the population does not believe the same thing.

Your approach will NEVER work. If it did it would end up killing more teenage girls anyway. I don't think its a good trade off to kill mom instead of the baby.


First off, what religious argument? I'm an atheist?

Second, it's not about believing the same as me, it's about affording every human being the right to life--an inalienable right, according to our nation's founding documents. Sometimes it's not about "believing" the same thing, but accepting that some things are written into our society.

As for your claims about killing more teenage girls...prove it. Oh, wait, you can't, because it's a ludicrous claim that is meant to appeal to emotion rather than logic, and you can't foresee the future of anything. Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy...stop.



There used to be Christians with a history of understanding philosophy and theological arguments. Its much easier to understand the fallacy of ones private beliefs or thoughts when you understand valid and logical arguments.

You can be prolife and be a realist as well. Christianity is on its way out in the us and Europe. Its because of rigid beliefs without logic and a lack of reality. Maybe your efforts would be better used actually trying to educate and compassionately persuade rather than judge which Christianity denounces.

The laws wont change from a religious argument. It has to be rational.


Speaking of being rational...I don't care about Christianity, so stop being ignorant and making apparent assumptions about me that I'm Christian, or even religious.

Can you be any more predictable in a stereotypical way? Jesus.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying you were wrong when you insisted that all teenagers wanted to have sex. Which you did.


I wasn't saying that either. I said that teenagers WILL have sex. I didn't say anything about all of them. So no I didn't.


I agree. But there's what people teach, and then there's what other people get out of it. Perhaps, though, you just have more faith in government education than I do


Government education is standardized buddy.


I...don't recall arguing that. I said that your claim that all teenagers had sex or wanted to have sex was false. But telling teenagers not to have sex isn't a bad idea. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about it: link

Note that Planned Parenthood explicitly states that abstinence through the teenage years and into the 20s tends to confer certain health benefits. If you really want a safe society, you WOULD tell teenagers not to do it. Note well: that doesn't mean you have to keep them ignorant about sex.


I have nothing against abstinence as a choice. It's when it is presented as the ONLY option that I have a problem with it.


Safest for whom? Clearly not for the troublemakers you've just locked up. A safe society is usually a utopian mirage. Almost everything done in the name of safety always eats away at something else important.
Besides, if we really wanted to be safe in the US we'd get rid of cars, cigarettes and booze. And sex. People don't want to be safe. They want to enjoy life.


Ok well then that is what I want. Safety and the ability to enjoy life.


Consider it an investment. We'll save money in the long run by saving billions on soldier's benefits.
Of course, we'll give these soldiers the chance to leave when they're 18 if they want to, and we'll pay them a stipend when they age out. But it will be much less expensive than paying for their salaries their entire lives.


Have you actually done the numbers on this or are you just making them up in your head? Plus we already have a problem with police brutality because of the police being disconnected from the neighborhoods they are supposed to police, and you want to add tons of people to the national register whose ENTIRE lifetime has been training to fight a war? Yea, THAT'S going to go over well.


And it might sound downright awful, but I'm sure they'll prefer it to being dead. And if they don't, like you said, they can always commit suicide, or muster out at 18.
Plus, they will literally be the best soldiers in the world. It would be totally awesome. What could go wrong?



I feel like I just had a trailer for a horror movie flash through my head. There is PLENTY that could go wrong. Not to mention, why would we need all these soldiers? There are millions of abortions each year, if every one of those became a super-soldier instead, we'd be CRAWLING in soldiers in this country. We'd basically become Sparta.


That's not true. Ancient cultures often lived in familial units that took care of each other.


Well it's a TAD harder to structure a country of 300 million people to work like ancient tribal cultures you know?


Or debt enslavement.


Hey, I don't agree with that either, but at least you can file bankruptcy for MOST of your debt.


Meh. Ancient cultures kinda rocked. We wouldn't have anything we have today if it wasn't for the Romans.
In seriousness, though, I think we spend so much money on social services because it's a system rigged to get money, not to take care of people. It's my understanding that the German system (for example) is much more efficient than the US system, so why don't we have that? Because people are gaming the system, that's why.


Ancient Cultures only rocked if you were one of the people on top. Even the Romans still mistreated non-Romans that immigrated to their empire. Now you are applying rose colored glasses to things you don't understand.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then do us all a damn favor and paste the entire thing into this thread--you shouldn't expect people to register with a site just to view the information that you claim supports your theory, then ignorantly accuse them of not being willing to do any "real research" into the topic when you yourself don't take the necessary steps to provide the information necessary to prove your point.


It's free man. It takes a few seconds to register and is ridiculously easy to setup so you don't get your email spammed with crap. Plus its a scientific journal so you have access to more scientific research than just that paper.


The onus to prove your point lies in you, not others to undertake "real research" to see if you're telling the truth, or a study that you improperly link to in your OP has conclusions that are appropriate to the data and the data collection process.



I GAVE you the proof. I can't help it if you can't take the few seconds it takes to register and read it. I can't just copy and paste the whole thing because that is against the T&C. I'm not going to hold your hand through the whole process; just man up and register. It's not going to kill you.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
I am pro-choice because of all the reasons women may have. Let me say it this way: you stop a young poor girl from having an abortion three things could happen, she may have an illegal abortion and die as a result, she may have the child and give it up or she may raise an unwanted child. All three scenarios are horrible, most of the time those unwanted children live a short life suffering. You are not going to help her raise that child, so why should she do what you want her to do? It's her body, her actions, her life, her decisions.


But it's not oppressive to deny a child it's life that she helped create? We should punish the child because the mother and father are too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their lust/love? A death sentence when nothing has been done wrong by the individual is not an oppressive act?

Agartha, you know full well that there are more than just these three options that you proposed here--there is a girl and her daughter who live as foster children across the street from my house (they are currently fostering those two, plus two others, and have adopted two and have one biological child). That girl gave birth do her daughter at age 14--that loving foster family has had "custody" of them since before her daughter was born, and has provided them both with a wonderful life full of love and direction--that family of biological, adopted, and fostered kids is one of the greatest families I have ever met. And each of those children (other than the biological child) has a horrible back story that would make you cringe, and more than once, each one of them had wished that they were dead because of what their biological parent(s) or grandparent did to them.

But you know what, each one of them is eternally grateful for the second chance that this family has given them, and these scarred children are turning into some of the best kids I've ever known--all at the hands of their lesbian, atheist moms. It's awesome to watch--and I only included those descriptors of their moms to give you the proper mental picture.

My point being, none of these kids were "wanted," but each and every one of them has something wonderful to offer this world because they are still in it and still alive. Nearly all of them were born into poverty, one is a heroine baby (he's still in toddler-sized clothes at age 6), and all were either physically, sexually, emotionally, or mentally abused--or some or all of the above. Yet they're still here, making the best of the world, having endured some of the worst imaginable childhoods that I can think of.

I gladly help raise these children--I am their male role model when they need one. I answer the puberty questions for the boys. I play sports with them (boys and girls). I help them with art projects. I built a loft bed for one. They come to me or my wife when they don't want to talk to their moms about problems or issues. They come to our house to "get away" from the "zoo" and just chill. We watch them when needed, feed them, take them places, etc...we are part of raising them, and their moms have openly acknowledged as much and thanked us on many occasions.

I want to tell you and everyone reading this thread one last time--stop providing and accepting excuses. Stop telling me what I do and don't do when it comes to other peoples' children. Just stop pretending that you know who I am or what I do to help people, period. You have no clue, just baseless assumptions.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Apparently my original response to this didn't post, or I forget to hit the reply button.

Either way, I'll try to restate my first typed response.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I GAVE you the proof. I can't help it if you can't take the few seconds it takes to register and read it. I can't just copy and paste the whole thing because that is against the T&C. I'm not going to hold your hand through the whole process; just man up and register. It's not going to kill you.


I've read the T&C of this site...if you cite the source, you can copy/paste, unless I've missed some fine print somewhere.

I may sign up, I may not--if I do, I'll look at the data and review their data-collection process (as I do with all scientific papers) and see what I think.

That said, it's readily apparent that this discussion has nearly run its course--no one ever changes opinion on these types of threads, so in reality, this entire back-and-forth is relatively pointless.

Plus, I really get tired of pro-abortion people making asinine assumptions about me and then me having to defend myself so that they don't feel like they won.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I've read the T&C of this site...if you cite the source, you can copy/paste, unless I've missed some fine print somewhere.


You can't post large blocks of text from outside sources, even if you DO post a link to the source. You are just going to have to sign up and read the article yourself. I would have my post edited (actually posts, it IS a long study) by mods if I posted the whole thing.


I may sign up, I may not--if I do, I'll look at the data and review their data-collection process (as I do with all scientific papers) and see what I think.


That's between you and how far you are willing to go to deny ignorance. If you want to just sit with your confirmation biases, then don't do it. If you want to learn and grow then by all means sign up and read it. I've done my part. The onus is on you now to either read or not read it.


That said, it's readily apparent that this discussion has nearly run its course--no one ever changes opinion on these types of threads, so in reality, this entire back-and-forth is relatively pointless.

Plus, I really get tired of pro-abortion people making asinine assumptions about me and then me having to defend myself so that they don't feel like they won.


Yea, it's not like you've never been guilty of doing this to other people in other discussions or anything. Everyone generalizes the opposing argument from time to time. It's something you just have to deal with, plus it makes it easier to compartmentalize the opposing arguments. It doesn't make it right and I don't like it when its done to me either, but we are all human and that's just the way things are and the way we behave.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


But in general, capital murder trials cost more, because they have two phases — the trial itself, and then sentencing, which requires a separate verdict. Selecting a jury that's willing to impose the death penalty can take weeks or months longer, and the death sentence itself can also lead to more legal appeals. For example, the recent challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection as a method of execution went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you divide the overall cost by the number of actual executions, Dieter says, the death penalty is very expensive.

"The cost per execution is at least $3 million — it's probably more in a lot of these states — and we have 3,000 people on death row. The costs are in the billions," Dieter says.

But supporters of the death penalty say expense is no reason to abolish it. William "Rusty" Hubbarth, of the victims-rights organization Justice for All, calls the expense argument "crass."

"I think that's ludicrous, especially since the financial cost is created by the defense," Hubbarth says.

www.npr.org...




top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join