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.

 

Democratic Party takes major stand for reproductive freedom

page: 14
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu




Ideally, TAXES should be voluntary... (Even if that's an oxy-moron)


Here is an interesting idea that i think you might like. The concept "targeted taxes" is an interesting one. I, in all honesty, think that your should start a thread that speculates on what a society built on that concept might look like.




I don't agree with abortion in most cases, because I do think it's murder, but if a woman and a doctor enter into an agreement, I am not going to stop them...


However, is that basis for the murder charge focused on the death of a fetus or prevention of a life?




posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But murder is an illegal act. So the debate is essentially, once again, when is life determined life?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu

Yes i can clear that up.

What i am saying is that we have a system of taxation that make practical(ish) sense. It has been effective and i just don't see way that would work with our current social and political structures.

You can of course "want" your taxes to go to specific places, but executing that requires a plan, support, time and in all honesty is probably not worth the effort of uprooting society.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Tsukimidnightmoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsukimidnightmoon

It would (maybe) look like a "gofundme" government... Just a thought...

Your second point is where I'm self-conflicted... I DO wish there was someone to stand up for the babies' rights, but it IS close to an individual right (of the woman) because of the "inside her body and connected by flesh" aspect... While I disagree with abortion (in most cases) I do not want to force anyone to do what they do not want to do (have a baby)... I think this is where the families' taught values come in...

But I stand by "it shouldn't be government funded," because that IS taking away the right of others to not contribute, if they choose not to...
edit on 6/27/2016 by japhrimu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsukimidnightmoon

At the risk of straying off topic, this is a good argument for reducing/localizing government/taxes, or AT LEAST not increasing them, especially for such a disagreeable (to many) cause.
edit on 6/27/2016 by japhrimu because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/27/2016 by japhrimu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu

I am forced to follow anti-luxury laws in my state. I have no choice even though disagree strongly with those laws.

We are all forced in some way by the government or by each other to uphold basic social contracts. It is expected of us as people who are building our lives on this planet to offer some form of compensation for the security and comfort society enjoys.

This requires compromise if we are to survive.

I would be redundant to explain why everyone having their way is contradictory. No matter the nation or time picking ideological battles and giving ground when you lose only makes us stronger and smarter as a whole.

There will always be things we hate about the world around us. If you have the support or power or vision to make and enforce your ideology on the country, then by all means do so.


edit on 27-6-2016 by Tsukimidnightmoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsukimidnightmoon

1st paragraph: What're "anti-luxury taxes?" (Honest question. I can guess, or google, but conversation, right?)

2nd paragraph: These are, again, good arguments for reduced/localized governments, in my opinion. (Does that make sense? I'll rephrase if needed.)

3rd paragraph/point: Survival isn't "comfort" and this kind "compromise" for security sounds kinda like... What is it? Blackmail/extortion/strong arming... (You get what I'm saying, right?)

4th: I don't think opinions differing on major concepts such as what counts as "murder" really falls under this "getting your way" type of logic... (Not dismissing... You understand what I'm saying, though?)

5th: (I'm going to take paraphrasing privilege, to make a point... I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, so disagree with me, please...) "Survival of the fittest." So, would you say that slavery isn't bad, as long as you have the power? (I feel bad for putting it like that... For conversation purposes only...)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu

Well, I'll be up for maybe another 15 minutes if this is gonna go on... I'll check back and respond to responses tomorrow, at least, if not tonight...



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu




1st paragraph: What're "anti-luxury taxes?" (Honest question. I can guess, or google, but conversation, right?)


They are called blue laws. In my state I can not purchase achol from a store or a car from a dealership on Sundays because it is assumed i would be too drunk on god already.



2nd paragraph: These are, again, good arguments for reduced/localized governments, in my opinion. (Does that make sense? I'll rephrase if needed.)


Government isn't a thing, it is a theory. Presumably there is a theory of small government that could exist and be effective. On the flip side there could be a theory on how a one world government could do the same.

Neither one is better than the other. It simply is what is. A theory of governance.




3rd paragraph/point: Survival isn't "comfort" and this kind "compromise" for security sounds kinda like... What is it? Blackmail/extortion/strong arming... (You get what I'm saying, right?)


Survival is not an understatement. We rely on each other, despite the claims in this thread to the otherwise. If isolated and forced to handle our own lives without assistance i don't believe the vast majority would survive. And even the ones that do will live based on knowledge of other peoples experiences.




4th: I don't think opinions differing on major concepts such as what counts as "murder" really falls under this "getting your way" type of logic... (Not dismissing... You understand what I'm saying, though?)


I understand. Right now however in my opinion and the opinion of the law it is not murder. If you feel like you want the latter to change get more involved in political work and work to change it.



"Survival of the fittest." So, would you say that slavery isn't bad, as long as you have the power?



I like to think if i were in power i would have higher standard than that. Maybe there is a circumstance in which i would consider it necessary, but i have no idea what that would be.

edit on 27-6-2016 by Tsukimidnightmoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's easy to "gotcha" people... He/she was trying to make a point... I THINK Neo was saying all murder is wrong...


Thanks for chiming in.

I'm very aware of what the poster I responded to was saying.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Gryphon66

So... "Deal with it?" I still think abortion is murder... I do think "hellfire missles" are murder... (Is it a war, though? Are they enemy combatants? Are babies enemy combatants?) I don't want my involuntary tax dollars going to those, either...

Two wrongs don't make a right...
(If I am over generalizing, let's get more specific... I'll need your help, though.)


You are welcome to believe as you wish ... in regards to your own life.

I have explained that "your tax dollars" don't exist after you pay your taxes, they become government revenue. It's an absurd caprice that only makes sense rhetorically. Our representatives determine how US revenues are spent, not you, not me.

However, I've provided an easy "out" for your sensitivities and beliefs ... you pay for the Hellfire missiles, I'll pay for the abortions.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

But murder is an illegal act. So the debate is essentially, once again, when is life determined life?


Perhaps it is a philosophical question, but it is not now a legal one.

The law recognizes the need for abortions as a medical procedure.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But the law does not allow for elective medical procedures, just 'cause. So while you can say that abortion is necessary in certain, rare circumstances to safeguard the life of the mother or something equally dire, the vast, vast majority are carried out for simple expedient of the mother's convenience and no other reason.

Similarly, amputations are recognized as a necessary medical procedure, and if you need to have a limb removed to save your life, no doctor is going to balk at it. However, just try to go talk your doctor into taking off your arm or leg because you have decided you don't want them.

The specific SCOTUS ruling was for the mother's physical well-bring, not because she couldn't afford it.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsukimidnightmoon

I am willing to compromise on some things that I don't agree with, such as paying taxes for some things that seem stupid or do not affect me.

However, I draw the line at compromising when it comes to my taxes paying for the murder of innocent unborn children. That is something that I am not willing to compromise on. There are just some things so morally reprehensible that a civilized society should not allow it.

What if some people started saying that genital mutilation should be allowed, and that our tax dollars should pay for it? After all, if our society keeps going in the direction it is going, some are going to start demanding that. Not that this procedure is as bad as murder, but it is getting close to that level, and a civilized society should never allow it.

Where do we draw the line?

.
edit on 6/27/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

I don't care whether you are unsatisfied or not. We already drew the line scientifically and legally. Your opinion based on neither.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Tsukimidnightmoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure how can rationalize that comparison of an arm to a fetus in the context or medical procedures. Regardless, an arm is just as "alive" as an undeveloped fetus so i am not sure if your own logic really pans out.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsukimidnightmoon

Who is "we"? This is not a matter of "opinion". There are some things that transcend anyone's opinion, and that includes morality.

The rest of "we" need to fight to change laws that violate basic human principles of morality. We need to speak out against these atrocities. I have done so, and will until the day that I die.

Someone needs to speak for those who can not speak for or defend themselves.


edit on 6/27/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Of course the law allows for "just cause" procedures, and notably, although abortion isn't one of those, abortion is legal whatever the reason. I didn't say that abortion was necessary (as usual, you have to put words into my mouth to create your own argument).

The "vast, vast majority" are simply none of your business, expedient or not. I know this frustrates your authoritarianism.

False equivalencies aside, abortions are legal and will be. There's not now nor has there been any justifiable reason why you can tell me what medical procedures I can have, nor vice versa.

In various Federal and State programs, we cover the health care needs of others. Why is it, in this case, some people think they have the right to decide what someone else can have done?

"Oh, perk up Ketsuko. You don't need that heart surgery. You should have exercised more. I don't want to pay for your laziness."

... and it really doesn't matter if it's heart surgery, a sore thumb, or an abortion ... it's the same principle. It's none of your business and none of mine what medical procedures others have.

Period.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tsukimidnightmoon
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure how can rationalize that comparison of an arm to a fetus in the context or medical procedures. Regardless, an arm is just as "alive" as an undeveloped fetus so i am not sure if your own logic really pans out.



I am not arguing about "alive" at this point. I am arguing about "necessary" in terms of medical procedures. Neither an elective abortion nor an elective amputation are medically necessary. Those were the grounds for my point.

Issues of whether or not an arm and baby are the same thing is whole other ball of wax and takes the issue of whether or not an abortion should be allowed in issues of mere convenience to a further level of NO. This comes back to the heart of teaching personal responsibility IMO. If you don't want to be pregnant that badly, then you should not be engaging in activities that lead to pregnancy in the first place.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Damn you guys are dominoes begging to be knocked down.



Who is "we"? This is not a matter of "opinion". There are some things that go beyond anyone's opinion, and that includes morality.


Another claim from someone who has come somehow divined laws on absolute morality. You think very highly of yourself when clearly you shouldn't


The rest of "we" need to fight to change laws that violate basic human principles of morality. We need to speak out against these atrocities. I have done so, and will until the day that I die.
.

And when you have failed because your arguments hold no water I will be there to whisper into your ear "You lost."



Someone needs to speak for those who can not speak for or defend themselves.


I see you think you have a voice. I will tell you now. People will never rally around for the moral guidance you pull outta nowhere. You are delusional, in a dangerous way that borders on Extremism.

The universe did not convey morale truths to you. It did not inform when "Life begins" and you will never ever be allowed to destroy others lives just because you think you know better.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Tsukimidnightmoon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join