Bumper stickers of the confused

[This_person]

The government is socialist if it makes your medical decisions for you.

Isn't that the reason why you're opposed to universal healthcare?

I am against universal health care because it is not in the Constitution that I am responsible to provide your health care. While I see the government getting involved (via what it will pay for and not pay for) in determining a great amount of medical options, that has little to do with why I'm against it.

It's not my job to pay for your stuff. That's your job.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Well, if they're not equatable, it's not hypocrisy. Do you have as much trouble understanding that word as you do socialism?That is neither a religious view, nor the view of pro-life.

You are for the government playing god... you are for the government determining who gets to live and die.

How many people are released from prison each year because they are wrongfully convicted?

How many people were on death row when DNA evidence exonerated them?

How many people were exonerated AFTER being executed?

 

[dems4me]

Well, for what it's worth..When my wife told me she was pregnant with our third child, I didn't really "want" it. Nor did I think I could afford another child. We were also having problems at the time. Thirteen years later, my third child is just as wonderful as the other two. I couldn't imagine life without her. Because of our higher moral beliefs, we knew abortion wasn't right. I'm so glad.

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. We all know what causes that. Once you're pregnant, I believe we as human beings have the moral obligation to let that baby live. If you want to abort it, you better have a pretty darn good reason other than it just wasn't wanted. That's so wrong.

Why did it take 13 years?

 

[nomoney]

I am against universal health care because it is not in the Constitution that I am responsible to provide your health care. While I see the government getting involved (via what it will pay for and not pay for) in determining a great amount of medical options, that has little to do with why I'm against it.

It's not my job to pay for your stuff. That's your job.

How many of those non-aborted but wanted to be aborted kids do you think you're paying healthcare for now? If they outlawed abortion, how many MORE kids do you think you will not only be providing healthcare for but foodstamps and other welfare programs? You can't have it both ways. If you want every baby to have a chance at life, you have to be willing to help support them.

 

[Merlin99]

You said that being pro-choice is about choosing. Well, what is it that is deemed an acceptable choice? Killing babies.

So, if pro-choice does not mean pro-having-the-option-to-kill-babies, what does it mean? What is the choice that does not include the intentional death of a separate life, with it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, etc., etc?

If we extend your logic here, to be believe in gun rights you must own a gun? The choice here is being told you can't do something or choosing to not do something. If you can't see a difference, then the democrats have won

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

I am against universal health care because it is not in the Constitution that I am responsible to provide your health care. While I see the government getting involved (via what it will pay for and not pay for) in determining a great amount of medical options, that has little to do with why I'm against it.

It's not my job to pay for your stuff. That's your job.

I pay taxes as well you stupid ass moron.

What's wrong with somebody who pays their taxes getting free healthcare because they cannot afford an $800/month plan because they have 2 kids to support and have to keep a roof over their head and a car to get to work and have to feed their kids?

 

[This_person]

I kind of answered this below the second part below--well above this one.

As for the first part it just seems that many people who are pro life and against gay marriage tend to be for small government in general. Yet at the same time want big government to come in and restrict these two making them illegal or non existent.

As for abortion, I'm simply against killing people for the purpose of making life easier for the person paying for the kill. I believe that people are responsible for their actions, and it's reasonable to assume you MAY create a life if you have sex, and therefore you are responsible for the life you create by choosing that action.

As for same-gendered unions, I'm all for anybody living the life they choose to live so long as it doesn't harm others. I see no inherent harm in two men, three women, two couples, whatever, all wanting to live together, share ceremonies and life experiences and bills and whatever. Leave their money to each other in their wills, have living wills for medical issues and hospital access, executor's of each other's wills, etc. The one and only difference between these groups and two opposite gendered people living together as "married" is the state marriage license/certificate. If that's defined as one man and one woman, so be it (it's worked well for thousands of years that way). If people choose to call same-gendered or multiple partner unions something to fit what they are, so be it - vote on it in your state and enforce that accordingly. But, just like we don't give a motorcycle license to someone to drive a semi, we don't give a marriage certificate to someone who doesn't meet that criteria.

 

[puggymom]

As for abortion, I'm simply against killing people for the purpose of making life easier for the person paying for the kill. I believe that people are responsible for their actions, and it's reasonable to assume you MAY create a life if you have sex, and therefore you are responsible for the life you create by choosing that action.

As for same-gendered unions, I'm all for anybody living the life they choose to live so long as it doesn't harm others. I see no inherent harm in two men, three women, two couples, whatever, all wanting to live together, share ceremonies and life experiences and bills and whatever. Leave their money to each other in their wills, have living wills for medical issues and hospital access, executor's of each other's wills, etc. The one and only difference between these groups and two opposite gendered people living together as "married" is the state marriage license/certificate. If that's defined as one man and one woman, so be it (it's worked well for thousands of years that way). If people choose to call same-gendered or multiple partner unions something to fit what they are, so be it - vote on it in your state and enforce that accordingly. But, just like we don't give a motorcycle license to someone to drive a semi, we don't give a marriage certificate to someone who doesn't meet that criteria.

See I believe the whole marriage license process needs to change. Just like the DMV you go down to the JOP during business hours with your proper paperwork etc and they sign off and you are married in the eyes of the state. This is for all people BTW. If you choose to have the big church wedding and reception party, marriage in the eyes of god etc that is up to you but should have no bearing on the state definition of marriage.
That way the definition can change without that definition inflicting of the rights of the church to decide who they bless so to speak.

As for abortion I do not think it should be up to the government to define what is an acceptable reason to have an abortion. It should be , IMO, up to a woman and her family, ultimate decision being the woman's.

 

[This_person]

You are for the government playing god... you are for the government determining who gets to live and die.

No, just not allowing people to kill someone else.

How many people are released from prison each year because they are wrongfully convicted?

How many people were on death row when DNA evidence exonerated them?

How many people were exonerated AFTER being executed?

Relevance?

 

[This_person]

How many of those non-aborted but wanted to be aborted kids do you think you're paying healthcare for now? If they outlawed abortion, how many MORE kids do you think you will not only be providing healthcare for but foodstamps and other welfare programs? You can't have it both ways. If you want every baby to have a chance at life, you have to be willing to help support them.

Once again, that's the parents' responsibility. Just because they're not allowed to kill 'em doesn't mean I have to feed, dress, house, and care for them.

But, you make a valid point that there would initially be a higher level of welfare recipients. Probably not a lot higher, because the people who are getting abortions are all over the income and marital status charts. And, I think not being able to get an abortion would effect some percentage of people's decisions to have "unexpected" (loved that category) or unprotected sex.

However, I am willing to help those in real need, and would accept that.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

No, just not allowing people to kill someone else.

So, you're opposed to the death penalty?

Relevance?

You're pro-life but you're pro capital punishment. I'm just trying to see why you're think it's wrong to kill innocent babies but think it's okay to kill innocent people who have been convicted of crimes they did not convict. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

If we extend your logic here, to be believe in gun rights you must own a gun? The choice here is being told you can't do something or choosing to not do something. If you can't see a difference, then the democrats have won

No, that's not the logical extension of what I'm saying at all.

To believe it's not okay to kill a child does not mean you have to have a child. To believe in gun rights does not mean you have to have a gun.

But, if I understand what you're saying, being pro-choice is merely choosing between whether the government should be involved in deciding whether it's okay to kill a baby or not (the choice here is being told you can't do something, or choosing not to do something). Does that extend to killing the baby six months after birth, just like six months before birth?

 

[This_person]

I pay taxes as well you stupid ass moron.

Andy, I've already paid your annual salary in taxes so far this year, and we've got a long way to go.

Besides, the word "you" there wasn't meant personally - but generically.

What's wrong with somebody who pays their taxes getting free healthcare because they cannot afford an $800/month plan because they have 2 kids to support and have to keep a roof over their head and a car to get to work and have to feed their kids?

A. It's not free. It's costing somebody, because if they can't afford it, they're not paying for it. If they're paying for it, it's not governmental invoked health care.

B. If they have more bills than they can pay for, they should have thought of that before getting that house, that care, having those kids, having cell phones and cable bills, etc., etc.

What's wrong with it is one person paying for a benefit for another person based on a federal mandate. I believe that to be generically wrong, if the person being provided has any ability to provide it for themselves. It's also generically wrong to have the government determine that health care is even a "need", and take my money to provide that "need" to someone else.

Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution says what the government can do, and it cannot do anything else (on a federal level). Read it, rail against all of the things we do now that don't meet it.

 

[puggymom]

No, that's not the logical extension of what I'm saying at all.

To believe it's not okay to kill a child does not mean you have to have a child. To believe in gun rights does not mean you have to have a gun.

But, if I understand what you're saying, being pro-choice is merely choosing between whether the government should be involved in deciding whether it's okay to kill a baby or not (the choice here is being told you can't do something, or choosing not to do something). Does that extend to killing the baby six months after birth, just like six months before birth?

That all depends on when you believe legal 'person hood' begins.

Though I am hesitant to restrict access to abortion I personally believe it starts around viability. I am hesitant because of the 1% of medical need abortions, which tends to be the majority of later term abortions. Any restrictions can potentially hinder a woman that falls in the 1% medical need category.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Andy, I've already paid your annual salary in taxes so far this year, and we've got a long way to go.

If you make that much money, you could easily adopt a couple of these unwanted babies and care for them since other people, who didn't have an abortion, gave them up because they are incapable of raising a kid.

 

[This_person]

See I believe the whole marriage license process needs to change. Just like the DMV you go down to the JOP during business hours with your proper paperwork etc and they sign off and you are married in the eyes of the state. This is for all people BTW. If you choose to have the big church wedding and reception party, marriage in the eyes of god etc that is up to you but should have no bearing on the state definition of marriage.
That way the definition can change without that definition inflicting of the rights of the church to decide who they bless so to speak.

See, everything you said here is already true. If two men, three couples, whatever, have a church that can and will support whatever living style they choose, they can have the ceremony that church supports and live whatever lifestyle they so choose. Nothing wrong with that.

On the state side of things, we still don't define a motorcycle to be an 18 wheeler, and that doesn't change. We still don't define a "marriage" to be anything other than one man with one woman, and there's no reason to change that.

Want to make another category of union, and provide three men, two women, and their dog to fit it? Go for it - get it voted on, pass it, and away we go. But don't change the definition of things to suit sitations that are not covered just to appease 2-3% of the population. Let the definition fit the situation, not the other way around

As for abortion I do not think it should be up to the government to define what is an acceptable reason to have an abortion. It should be , IMO, up to a woman and her family, ultimate decision being the woman's.

I still can't see why it's okay for a woman to have the option of killing her child.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

B. If they have more bills than they can pay for, they should have thought of that before getting that house, that care, having those kids, having cell phones and cable bills, etc., etc.

You have no knowledge of the real world, do you?

Then again, I can see why since you make over $6,000,000/year. Who needs to know anything about reality when they make that much?

 

[This_person]

So, you're opposed to the death penalty?



You're pro-life but you're pro capital punishment. I'm just trying to see why you're think it's wrong to kill innocent babies but think it's okay to kill innocent people who have been convicted of crimes they did not convict. :shrug:

You're discussing two different things. One, like Nuck does and you've been called out on before, you are placing an argument I am not making on me. I am NOT for killing innocent people. Never have been.

Two, the process calls for punishment in the form of death for those who are convicted through a pretty rigorous process. Maybe that fails on the rare occaision. I'm not for the process failing. I would be more for fixing that process to ensure it's accurate. It's reprehensible that people not guilty of their crimes get put to death. Just like it's reprehensible that babies be put to death for the comfort of their mother's life.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

You're discussing two different things. One, like Nuck does and you've been called out on before, you are placing an argument I am not making on me. I am NOT for killing innocent people. Never have been.

Two, the process calls for punishment in the form of death for those who are convicted through a pretty rigorous process. Maybe that fails on the rare occaision. I'm not for the process failing. I would be more for fixing that process to ensure it's accurate. It's reprehensible that people not guilty of their crimes get put to death. Just like it's reprehensible that babies be put to death for the comfort of their mother's life.

Rare?

Death Penalty Issues
Fight the Death Penalty in USA

 

[This_person]

That all depends on when you believe legal 'person hood' begins.

More on what you think the actual definition of that baby's individual life begins.

My definition of that has changed as I've learned, but I'm at the 12 day point right now - the last possible time when the possibility exists for twins to be created from the original fertilized egg - and therefore when the actual person exists with it's own DNA.

Once you determine when life actually exists, you make the law reflect the reality.

As for viability, that definition is also movable. For example, if the baby were never removed from the womb (where it was willingly placed by the mother and father), it's viability to survive is much different than removing it from that womb.

Though I am hesitant to restrict access to abortion I personally believe it starts around viability. I am hesitant because of the 1% of medical need abortions, which tends to be the majority of later term abortions. Any restrictions can potentially hinder a woman that falls in the 1% medical need category.

Like trying to decide which person you pull from a burning house first, or which patient to work on first in a mass casualty event, choices have to be made at the point of medical needs of the mother. If her life is in actual physical jeopardy, that's a time that choice may be an option, as in the cases I compared to here.