So called "pro-lifers" cut food aid for poor single mothers, children and infants

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

These same government officials turn a blind eye to our out of control military budget. Lets cut programs that benefit Americans yet continue throwing our tax dollars into an enormous military budget! These domestic programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we've thrown into these wars.

We're spending 6 times the amount on our military budget compared to China who has the second largest military budget in the world. We're spending 130 billion dollars a year for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spend approximately 25 billion a year on foreign aid.

In total our Military budget is 1.2 trillion dollars. Shouldn't these elected officials be looking to cut this budget by at least 1/2? Remove all our troops stationed over seas and that would amount to a huge reduction! Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Shouldn't our government take drastic measures and cut our military budget before the dollar possibly crashes? Are they going to wait until they put the population of this country into economic hardships and chaos?

I just love it when people jump right to slash the military budget -
You know what is actually spent? Where it goes? How many more young people would be out of work if we cut the military big time?
Ok how about all that hardware? Who works building that hardware? Mining the minerals for it?
Or maybe designing new systems - engineers etc. ?
The military is really the great ol guberment spending money that stimulates the economy - is that not what people want?
Oh, you have to work for it - not a handout. So Sorry.

Originally posted by Chett
I just love it when people jump right to slash the military budget -
You know what is actually spent? Where it goes? How many more young people would be out of work if we cut the military big time?

Oh spare me the BS. Our military budget is more than 10 fold that of Russia's and yet our miltary size is roughly that of the same. Alot of the military budget does not go to paying folks their wages. We didn't increase our military budget by $1 trillion over the last 10 years to maintain roughly the same forces we've heald for years. We have how many bases around the world? We are fight 3 wars that we need not be in, we see billions dissappearing without ANY accountability any your want to come and tell us that cutting military budget will cut into the wages of soldiers? And what about the cutting of medicaid and other aid programmes? What? Are we comparing which is acceptable and which is not? Get off it.

have to work for it - not a handout. So Sorry.

Work for it? We're printing the damn money off to pay for our bloated military, what the hell are you talking about? Did haliburton work for the money they earned in Iraq. I cannot for the life of me believe the excuses you're making.

Yeah. actually I got annoyed and went overboard. Truth is all of the gov't is wasting money (that they print) all over the place -
Some of the insane things like jello wrestling in Antarctica would be first on my list, maybe building treadmills for shrimp too (even tho I am sure somebody got a job to do that).
I am staying out of the abortion debate this time, it always just goes round and round.
Pro-choice people rant a lot about 'rape victims' - just once I would like to see some stats on that to go with it. And pro-life types, just once tell me what gives you the right to tell me what to do with my body? Nobody ever answers these sorts of things they just start ranting.

Originally posted by Australiana
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

It should always be the woman's choice. It is HER body and HER responsibility in the future so she should not be bullied into making wrong decisions. So many times it happens, someone makes you a promise to stand by you... and then... they leave you all alone in the lurch...

The only person you should ever learn to rely on is yourself - unfortunate but true.

I think it should be a man's choice. According to THIS STUDY by the U.S. Census Bureau and other tax funded government entities well trusted by the US people.....women have really dropped the ball in the past decade or more on raising children. It seems that they cannot balance the workforce and motherhood and according to these statistics....MEN are the better candidates to raise children. As for this whole thing being a "woman's" choice??
I think not. I think that it should be the CHILDS choice. The mother is nothing but an envelope holding the seed.....after the seed is removed from the envelope...the envelope doesn't matter anymore. The child, born by whatever means is still human, and because the Census Statistics prove by no shadow of a doubt that mothers are no longer competent to raise children......the fathers should make thee rational decisions according to the best interests of the child. I am currently and I.T. Administrator, but I would galdly give all of that up to champion a man's right to finally be given a chance to do what today's woman clearly cannot do. The campaign of feminism against men has done nothing but destroy women's credibility and ability to resume responsibilities regarding the children. As stated above in this particular part of the post, it was quotes that ...

"It should always be the woman's choice. It is HER body and HER responsibility"

This statement clearly proves that women today are simply just selfish in nature....not thinking of the child at all, rather only of themselves. I believe men would do a much better job as I am sure no man, anywhere would make such a calloused statement of selfish reserve at the sacrifice of a child's life. Women, of course would have to be submitted into this process against their will at the beginning, but I feel, after an strict indoctrination process of emotional re-installment for women, this cold and sterile, emotional defect can be stabilized. If there is a government figure anywhere that needs a champion of the children U2U me and I will run for office to mitigate this embarrassing installation of feminism which has detroyed many lives of all genders and ages in it's wake.
"I am Phenomium.....and I approve of this message"

Originally posted by Chett
I am staying out of the abortion debate this time, it always just goes round and round.
Pro-choice people rant a lot about 'rape victims' - just once I would like to see some stats on that to go with it.

Stats? You need states to prove the existing of rape victims who go for abortions? Really? This isn't a numbers game, this is about the rights of every individual. If you feel confortable with telling a rape victim, a child, that she'll be charged by the government over a choie, I really question your mind set.

Originally posted by Phenomium
I think it should be a man's choice.

Maybe it's the man's choice "morally" or "legally" in your view, but biologically it is a woman's body and her choice, her control. Fact is, the woman carries the fetus, what she chooses to do will inevitably effect the fetus, a man has no further say in it other than his one night stand and part of his DNA.

As I said, "morally" and "legally" you may view it as the man's choice, but reality and biologically, it's the woman's, and only the womans. Until men share pregnancies, it's going to stay that was for some time.

I think that it should be the CHILDS choice.

I don't believe fetuses can make choices, and I don't believe their children. I do frown upon woman who make the choice of abortion after making a bad choice before, but I don't for one bit blame a rape victim for choosing that road.

This statement clearly proves that women today are simply just selfish in nature

I don't believe a rape victim is selfish at all for the choice she made in abortion, I don't believe a child is selfish for choose an abortion, yes, a child, pregnant children, they exist, and for MANY reasons. I do agree with you that there are many woman who are selfish, who carry out abortions for the sake of convenience, but that is not the case for some women who are put in that position.

reply to post by Phenomium


from what I've seen, the men are really dropping the ball also....
let's just sterialize everyone, there is such a thing as test tube babies now days!!!
since, well, it appears that americans in general can no longer be accountable for their decisions when it comes to their sexual relations!!!

with genetics we can make them better, faster, smarter, healthier, superhuman!!
we can pick the best moms to raise them through infancy, then the gov't schools can take over....
super kids, learning only what the gov't deems appropriate for the little tykes!!!
and then at adulthood, well, they will be finely trained workers (or soldiers)!!!

don't like my idea??? well then grow up people!!!! freedom comes with an abundance of responsibility!! and once we abandon that responsibility, well, the freedoms seem to fade out of existence!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Maslo

 

For me, it comes down to government interference in our lives. If the government interfered and told me that I had to give blood, or that I couldn't have an abortion, it's the same thing. My body is mine. The government has no place in the conduct of my personal life.

All right, but according to this logic, you would have to answer yes to the siamese twins question I posted earlier, otherwise you are not consistent. Not to mention that the siamese twins case is much more biased towards yes as an answer than an abortion, because it is much bigger burden on the other person.

reply to post by Phenomium


Nope, women are thinking about the child; for many reasons.

Originally posted by Maslo
All right, but according to this logic, you would have to answer yes to the siamese twins question I posted earlier, otherwise you are not consistent. Not to mention that the siamese twins case is much more biased towards yes as an answer than an abortion, because it is much bigger burden on the other person.

I have not been inconsistent. I have repeated my views to you numerous times. I think you may just be confused about my point.

I listed two criteria as to why fetuses don't have the same rights as people:
One was TOTAL dependence on another for life (as a fetus is to a woman).
Two was being unborn or not yet a person (and therefore having questionable rights afforded "people').

Conjoined twins are PEOPLE and therefore have rights. Specifically, the right to life. Violating that right would be a crime.

.

These debates always have an element of confusion to me.

When, for whatever reason, be it rape, illness, incest, or other medical/social issues, there is an unwanted pregnancy, people seem to think they are the best suited to make a decision for another person.

Clearly, these personal decisions are best left to the person, their families, and their physicians. Yet, someone with absolutely no knowledge of their circumstances presumes to know what's best for them.

The sheer audacity and presumtuousness boggles one's mind. I can't seem to wrap my head around the reasoning behind so many "busybodies" who presume to know what's best for everyone. This is where the confusion sets in. It's hard to believe there are people willing to make decisions for people they don't know, whose circumstances are completely unknown to them.

I think these decisions are never made lightly. There are reasons. Reasons other's don't know, and it is not theirs to know.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I listed two criteria as to why fetuses don't have the same rights as people:
One was TOTAL dependence on another for life (as a fetus is to a woman).
Two was being unborn or not yet a person (and therefore having questionable rights afforded "people').

What is the rationale behind the "unborn" criterion? Surely it is something to do with biological dependence on the mother? And please dont answer with it being derived from US constitution or something, answer with your own logical justification.

Also, late-term abortions do not fullfill your first criterion, because these babies are not totaly dependent on the mother, they can survive without her.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Conjoined twins are PEOPLE and therefore have rights. Specifically, the right to life. Violating that right would be a crime.

So let me get this straight: People acquire rights by being born, because they are no longer biologically dependent on another persons body. But a siamese twin that is even more dependent on another persons body magically does possess a right to live, and can limit his hosts rights to his body accordingly. Again, this is inconsistent.

Originally posted by Maslo
What is the rationale behind the "unborn" criterion? Surely it is something to do with biological dependence on the mother? And please dont answer with it being derived from US constitution or something, answer with your own logical justification.

How can you ask me a question and tell me not to use my own personal justification to answer it? I have answered your questions. My rationale behind the unborn criterion IS derived from the Constitution and its protection of the rights of PEOPLE.

I have answered your questions several times now, yet you act as if you either didn't read my responses or you simply don't accept them as valid. You lead me back around in a circle as though you wish to trap me in something.

It is my opinion that to be protected by the rights of the Constitution, someone must be a PERSON. They must be BORN.

Here are my answers to your questions as posted in this thread:

I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. Whether or not an unborn child has rights is arguable. They may have rights and they may not. It's a matter of each person's opinion. But the woman's rights are incontrovertible. They are the ones that must be protected and respected.

The difference between an unborn child and a born child is that one is a person. The Constitution of the US protects the rights of people.

My justification for being pro-choice is freedom. Each person's freedom to make choices about their life, including reproduction.

Also, late-term abortions do not fullfill your first criterion, because these babies are not totaly dependent on the mother, they can survive without her.

They are not BORN.

Originally posted by Maslo
So let me get this straight: People acquire rights by being born, because they are no longer biologically dependent on another persons body.

NO. People acquire rights by being born because they are BORN and become PEOPLE.

But a siamese twin that is equally dependent on another persons body magically does possess a right to live, and can limit his hosts rights to his body accordingly.

Conjoined twins are BORN. They are PEOPLE. And their rights as people are protected by the Constitution.

Again, this is inconsistent.

No, it isn't. You have yet to point out this imagined inconsistency.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
...people seem to think they are the best suited to make a decision for another person.

Isn't this the root of MOST societal problems today? I think it is. People think that others should live by THEIR morals, values and standards. It's one of my pet peeves. So many on this site scream about government intervention and freedom, yet stand up to support government intervention when it comes to something THEY support! It really infuriates me. It's not easy to get on my nerves or make me mad, but this hypocrisy is one thing that really gets to me.

Grrr!

Good post, lady.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Really? So your answer on why it is the correct way is because it is written so in the US constitution? Sorry, but "because the holy book says so" is not an answer an intelligent human can be satisfied with..

If the US constitution told you to jump into a well, would you jump?

reply to post by Maslo


I'm done giving you the same answers to the same questions. If you don't understand my position by now, I cannot help you understand it more.

Thank you for the discussion.

reply to post by Chett


I guess you're also a strong supporter of starting a world war to get our economy back on track. I think domestic and peaceful programs are more of a priority than building machines who's main purpose is to kill and control populations.

Will it cost jobs, it sure will. When the dollar crashes will that cost jobs? A hell of a lot more than you're going to lose if we cut the military budget. That money can be redirected into programs that can be used for peaceful purposes and at the same time offset any jobs lost due to military budget cuts. I can think of a lot more areas that would create more jobs and help the U.S. economy than to keep on feeding our military industrial complex. What about focusing our efforts and tax dollars in some of these areas that will truly affect us, and the entire world?

-Clean Energy technologies that will end the need for all these wars.

-Recycling technologies that will help us eliminate trash, dangerous chemical waste and pollution.

-Improving mass transit technology so we can reduce our overcrowded highways.

-Research and development of free energy systems that will eliminate the need of an electrical grid.

-Increased research and development on medical technologies, including the use of nanotechnology, stem research, and gene research.

There is no reason why America can't re-tool it's work force and create jobs for a much peaceful and enriching cause. Manufacturer's re-tool their manufacturing facilities all the time based upon new technologies.

If government would re-invest 1/4 of their military budget into these new peaceful technologies, you could improve our economy and at the same time solve many of our problems we're facing throughout our world. If we were the leaders of these technologies, the world will be knocking at our doors. All this would eliminate the need to cut programs that really benefit Americans.



-

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I am not denying what Perry said.

I am denying what YOU asserted.

I will quote your thread title: "So called "pro-lifers" cut food aid for poor single mothers, children and infants."

You cherry picked your quote. I read the link, and it says that EVERY CORNER of teh Texas government is getting slashed.

It's not cherry picking. The title of the thread is pro-lifers cutting out aid to the poor of this nation.

Exactly. And when you read the article, it is shown that not only is aid to the poor being cut, but all corners of the government are being cut. You are being disingenuous at best.

. . .

Do you support what Perry is doing?

No, I do not like the man. I think things could be done differently.

Are you pro-life?

Indeed I am.

Do you agree that government should enforce law and order over a pregnant woman's body? Please state your position, thanks.

That one is complicated. I think that the government should keep to its own business. I also think that tax funds should not go to help these procedures, unless it is a proven case.

On top of that, I believe that a man should have a say so in the matter (at least for non-criminal cases), as it takes two to tango.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Phenomium
I think it should be a man's choice.

Maybe it's the man's choice "morally" or "legally" in your view, but biologically it is a woman's body and her choice, her control. Fact is, the woman carries the fetus, what she chooses to do will inevitably effect the fetus, a man has no further say in it other than his one night stand and part of his DNA.

As I said, "morally" and "legally" you may view it as the man's choice, but reality and biologically, it's the woman's, and only the womans. Until men share pregnancies, it's going to stay that was for some time.

I think that it should be the CHILDS choice.

I don't believe fetuses can make choices, and I don't believe their children. I do frown upon woman who make the choice of abortion after making a bad choice before, but I don't for one bit blame a rape victim for choosing that road.

This statement clearly proves that women today are simply just selfish in nature

I don't believe a rape victim is selfish at all for the choice she made in abortion, I don't believe a child is selfish for choose an abortion, yes, a child, pregnant children, they exist, and for MANY reasons. I do agree with you that there are many woman who are selfish, who carry out abortions for the sake of convenience, but that is not the case for some women who are put in that position.

You just made my point.
Selfishness. It's all about you right? The child has no choice.
In a matter of minutes since my post you casted away all morals and ethics and replaced them with your own selfishness by saying it is YOUR choice as a woman to murder the baby or not.
I bet if the baby had a say in the matter, his/her opinion would be slightly different than yours. What if your mother had aborted you? You wouldn't even have the choice to try to convince me of what you are trying to right now and any child or lineage you ever hoped to have would not exist. Your mother gave you a chance though, that's why you are here to even discuss this issue. Everyone desearves the same chance regardless of how YOU personally feel about a situation. People lose legs and arms and their lives change in an instant......they move on with life (most) and adapt. Bad things happen to good people all the time, that's life, but you don't remedy it my murdering a child or causing a world-wide issue, simply because something bad happened to you. You adapt.
Plain and simple, no matter how the child was brought into being.....it's murder to take the life of an innocent child against it's will. It wasn't the child that raped whomever had to carry it and the child should not have to pay the ultimate price for an @ss (rapist) or a murderer (the one who aborts it). The mother, however uncomfortable it is, should give the child a chance at life just like YOU had,....or whomever chooses to make the decision to kill it.
Considering all of the surplus of emotional instabilities that a woman has while the child is in utero, sometimes it is necessary for an outside influence to make an educated, indeed, a rational decision for the child's wellbeing....when it comes to the mother playing GOD and deciding whether the child should live or die. Circumstances, no matter how dire or unpleasant (rape or otherwise) does not give the mother a right to make a decision such as if someone can live or not.

Judges go to college for 20 years or more to get that right and even they can't make that decision unless there has been an illegal law broken that resulted in the untimely, uncalled for or pre-meditated murder.
Just because you are the "container" doesn't make you GOD of the child.
You are correct that you have the right to treat YOUR body any way you want......that's true, but when a child is alive inside of you, ....it is no longer just YOUR body to consider. You are making an uneducated decision, as many other mothers and teens....to scarp a body that doesn't belong to you personally. You are killing someone else.

Do what you will with your body......but let the child grow to be YOUR age one day so that He/She may make the same choice about His/Her body...which does NOT belong to you.

For a woman to say "I" can do with my body what I want....and not even consider the body of the child....is pure selfishness and you know it's true.
I am not right-wing nor am I left-wing...I hate American politics and think it's nothing more than a "divide and conquer" plan for our nation but I am for everyone having a right to live and make a choice FOR THEMSELVES,
whether they may have a shot at life or not.
The child in utero has a body as well..............what about what the child wants?

I don't believe fetuses can make choices, and I don't believe their children. I do frown upon woman who make the choice of abortion after making a bad choice before, but I don't for one bit blame a rape victim for choosing that road.

....it doesn't have a choice because the aborter won't give it a chance to make a choice. Give the child a few years and then ask it if it would have rather been aborted....you already know the answer and so do I.
What you are really trying to say is that the child "can't speak", therefore has no say. Under those rules, every mute person in the world could be put to death without conscience as well. They don't have a say either. yet there are those in the world who are not as calloused as women who abort children and choose to help those mute people out despite the hardships.
There are couples all over the world who wait for years sometimes to adopt a child and are more than willing to take up the responsibility of a misguided parent who negates responsibility or a woman who had a bad night with a rapist. 9 months is not too much for a person to sacrifice to give someone a lifetime of happy memories and a chance at learning and loving and all of those other things that you take for granted. True, as a male I can't have children (biologically), but there is more than one or two women in the world who have had children and lived long lives afterward....so it can be done. If I were deemed worthy of having a child by GOD.....I certainly would give the child a chance myself, but circumstances just aren't in the cards...who can change it? I have heard many women claim that a birth is a miracle and they glow with happiness at the chance to extend their life to another, so again, it's not all bad ......it's only 9 months of the mother's time...less than a year to create and give a life that would stretch to possibly 80-100 years of a child's experience and then possibly create a lineage that could change the very world we live in. The person a woman aborts may have very well been the one person who could have fixed all of this mess.....taken care of the rapists, or at least minimized the problem. the child could have been a great person that did great things in the world......yet, because of selfishness and the "ME" mentality.......no one will ever know...and the problems will just continue as they always have. One less person is one less person to help someone else.