Abortion

[sculptor]

Back to abortion:

So what was their reply when you suggested that they thank ther mother for not having the abortion.???

Do they know your position on a woman's right to choose.???

disambiguation:
My positionmy take)
a) Abortion is murder
b) parents have the right to murder their own children
c) people who murder their own children are mentally ill
d) the state, as it currently exists has no justifiable say in the matter.

Those children/babies/ zygotes do not belong to the state, they belong to their parents, and those who assume the responsibility of assuring the safety and comfort of the child/baby.

If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

What we seem to get from politicians is unfunded mandates, needless regulations, and the braying of jackasses.
If they want the right to interfere with people's personal decisions, then they should first earn that right!

......................
that being "said"(posted)
I would not choose to impose my view on anyone else
(one of the reasons that we do not discuss it in the family)

 

[DaveC426913]

It's still unclear whether you are stating unfortunate facts or whether you are stating your opinion.

b) parents have the right to murder their own children

This is contradictory.
If it's murder, it's a crime, by definition.
If it's simply killing, then it's not necessarily a crime.


So are you saying you agree that parents have the right to kill their children?
Or are you simply acknowledging the fact, despite personally considering it murder?

 

[sculptor]

... opinion.
This is contradictory.
If it's murder, it's a crime, by definition.
If it's simply killing, then it's not necessarily a crime.

opinion----------yep

I suspect/surmise, etc...
That the recipient of the action might not appreciate your distinctions.

call it what you will-----------kill is ok with me
taking another life is always taking another life
are there really any sane justifications?
(I just prefer to leave the politics and courts out of it, and still call it murder)
(the word is more loaded than kill----which voices a deeper opinion)

 

[DaveC426913]

taking another life is always taking another life
are there really any sane justifications?

Well, other than the obvious?

Your skin cells are alive but there's no crime in killing them.
Cells of the zygote, or fetus, like skin cells, can't survive without the host.

So the line between non-viable life and viable life is fuzzy. Some people just draw it in a different place.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

So you'r not for a womans right to choose... correct.???

I would not choose to impose my view on anyone else

So what was you'r pont when you suggested to you'r sons that they shoud thank ther mother for not having the abortion... an what was ther replys.???

 

[sculptor]

So you're not for a woman's right to choose... correct.???

No
not correct
(why in hell would you assume that?)

it ain't my choice
............
have you read the supreme court justices opinions published with roe v wade ?
.............
that being asked..................................................................

 

[cluelusshusbund]

No
not correct

Ok... got it... you are for a womans right to choose.!!!

it ain't my choice

Sculptor --- "I would not choose to impose my view on anyone else"

Sculptor --- "If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

So you'r for a womans right to choose unless the government steps up to the plate an chooses for her.???

 

[sculptor]

Ok... got it... you are for a womans right to choose.!!!







So you'r for a womans right to choose unless the government steps up to the plate an chooses for her.???

Not with the government that we have!

.............
(your above could use the ' repositioned)
thusly
"your and woman's"

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Not with the government that we have!

You woudnt say what you'r sons replies were when you told 'em that they shoud thank ther mother for not having the abortion... but im guessin that they was just as confused about you'r position on a womans right to choose as you are

 

[sculptor]

You woudnt say what you'r sons replies were when you told 'em that they shoud thank ther mother for not having the abortion... but im guessin that they was just as confused about you'r position on a womans right to choose as you are

I'm not confused.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Sculptor --- "If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

I'm not confused.

So you are for a womans right to choose... full stop... even if politicians step up to the plate.???

 

[billvon]

All commerce is a Ponzi scheme

Not really. Sustainable commerce is quite possible.

 

[billvon]

Or, so, at least believes the federal reserve bank.
I wonder:
Are they correct?

The way things stand now - yes. You cannot build an economy on debt unless you assume the ability to repay will increase forever.

Are they playing the game with a different agenda than I would have?

Probably not. Their agenda at the end of the day is to make money; I suspect yours is similar.

 

[Michael 345]

Not really. Sustainable commerce is quite possible.

The sustainability really is a bit of a illusion and needs a growing base of consumers combined with the product, no matter what it happens to be not lasting as long as it used to

 

[DaveC426913]

The sustainability really is a bit of a illusion and needs a growing base of consumers combined with the product, no matter what it happens to be not lasting as long as it used to

Yes. We call that civilization.
What is your suggested alternative?

 

[Michael 345]

Yes. We call that civilization.
What is your suggested alternative?

You might not like this

First - do not buy / sell money

Second - a limit on ownership of money

Third - each person limited to owning one company and each company can only have shares issued to those who work for the company. A company set up to sell shoes cannot have multiple names ie WE SELL SHOES cannot have another shop called SHOES SOLD HERE

How often have you gotten poor service and thought will go to the other shop and find out later both owned same person

That's enough to go on

 

[DaveC426913]

First - do not buy / sell money

Money is nothing more than a standardized unit for bartering.
Eliminate money and you simply agree on how many chickens are worth getting your lawn mowed.

What is does not do, is change the fundamental engine of civilization, which is that we need to each do work, so that we can get goods from others that we cant produce ourselves because we are busy doing our own work.

And a civilization must grow. If it doesn't grow, then people will be out of work, therefore out of a supply of tradable labour/goods, therefore unable to provide the essentials of civilization. That would result in each family working to get their own needs met, and we would become units even smaller than tribes (tribes are cooperative, tiny civilizations).

And we could only sustain that if there are about 99.99% fewer of us.

Second - a limit on ownership of money

That has been tried. It has not worked.

Third - each person limited to owning one company and each company can only have shares issued to those who work for the company. A company set up to sell shoes cannot have multiple names ie WE SELL SHOES cannot have another shop called SHOES SOLD HERE

Been tried. You are either talking about communism or fascism, depending on the details.

What history has taught us is that the only workable economy is a free market economy of supply and demand.

Yes, it's broken - but it's less broken than the other systems.

 

[Michael 345]

Eliminate money

Never said eliminate money

Don't buy / sell money

That has been tried. It has not worked.

Probably and of course my answer did miss many details

Been tried.

Not sure it has

only workable economy is a free market economy of supply and demand.

Yes, it's broken - but it's less broken than the other systems.

Only work economy countered by but it's less broken

OK find a economy which is less less broken

 

[billvon]

The sustainability really is a bit of a illusion . . .

Since we don't have it now, it's not really an illusion so much as it's nonexistent.

 

[James R]

Here are two scenarios for our conservative friends to contemplate:

1. A man is dying of bone cancer and needs a marrow transplant. Nobody in his immediate family is a compatible donor, but there is a cousin who could donate his marrow. The cousin, however, refuses to donate some of his marrow. He says that he has had a dream that he might not survive the anesthetic applied if the procedure to extract some of his marrow is carried out. There is no medical basis to think there is any great risk to the cousin, bone marrow extractions being routine surgical procedures. It is certain that without the transplant, the cancer patient will not survive, and it is extremely unlikely that another compatible donor can be found in time to save him.

Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the cousin in this case to undergo the procedure to donate some of his bone marrow to the cancer patient? Bear in mind that a man's life is at stake here and all life is sacred, as you tell us it is in the case of abortion.

2. A mother has a young child - 3 or 4 years old - with a heart problem. Due to a number of factors, this child can only be kept alive by physically connecting the child to the mother, so that the mother's heart can essentially act as a temporary pump for the child's blood. The child will almost certainly die if the procedure is not performed.

Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the mother in this case to be connected to the child, so as to keep the child alive? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the connection would need to be maintained for 9 months. Bear in mind that the child's life is at stake and all life is sacred.

Question: would it make any difference if it was the child's father who was to be connected in scenario 2 instead of the mother?