If you are pro life are you also.....

[Cowgirl]

I purposely avoid the Religion forum so I don't have to read crap spewed from the bible. It would be great for all of you bible thumpers to take this to the Religion forum and out of this thread. Last I checked this was the political forum...

 

[MMDad]

I am. I didn't just pull that number out of my ass.




Please show me in the bible where God says life begins at conception. I can point to several places in the bible where the power of life is present in the blood.

Looks like you know the bible better than the hate filled "preacher."

 

[CalvertNewbie]

I am pro-life and pro-responsibility. I am not against welfare but people who are on it shouldn't expect to be on it their whole lives and pass that lifestyle on to their kids. At some point,when they realize things are tight, maybe they will go get a damn job like the rest of us. If you are a brave soul, drive through a low income housing project during the morning. The parking lots are full of cars with tinted windows and spinners (they aren't working). Drive through again late in the afternoon. They are all just getting out of bed and are hanging out on the streets. Drive through again at midnight when most people are in bed resting for work the next day. The streets are crazy and busy. So, why is it they would even want to better themselves? After all, they can work the system, teach their 6 kids how to work the system and they can still afford delivery pizza and shiny bling. I say if the losers can't control their sexual urges and take responsibility for their actions, we need to offer them free vasectomies.

I completely agree with your take on welfare. I've driven through those "section 8" neighborhoods in New York many times, at all times of the day & night (I used to work with high risk youth). You forgot to mention that these lazy low-lifes often drive even nicer cars than we do. You're right about the "bling". They have nicer jewerly and clothes than we do, although ours was paid for and theirs probably wasn't. I used to get so aggitated when I'd see a mother dressed to the nines (for no reason, it's not as though she actually worked) while she sent her 8 kids to school in filthy, torn clothing.

I love your idea of "offering free vasectomies" but I'd take it a step further if I had the choice. Once they have a couple of kids and don't pay to support their own kids, they should be FORCED to get a vasectomy so they stop breeding. These ho's that keep getting knocked up by all these different "men" should have to get their tubes tied if they will not pay to support their own kids. It's ridiculous how they milk the system and quite frankly, I wish they'd completely just get rid of welfare if they can't get it under control. I'll never benefit from it, nor will anyone in my family, so why should I spend so much paying for it?

I'm pro-choice. Nobody should tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. Would I ever personally get an abortion? No. But that should be my choice. And not for nothing.....if more of these low-life, trashy biatches got abortions, we'd all be paying a lot less in welfare costs.

 

[CalvertNewbie]

I purposely avoid the Religion forum so I don't have to read crap spewed from the bible. It would be great for all of you bible thumpers to take this to the Religion forum and out of this thread. Last I checked this was the political forum...

Agreed.

 

[Xaquin44]

Looks like you know the bible better than the hate filled "preacher."

heck, most people here do.

 

[Toxick]

I purposely avoid the Religion forum so I don't have to read crap spewed from the bible. It would be great for all of you bible thumpers to take this to the Religion forum and out of this thread. Last I checked this was the political forum...

Well, I had purposely avoided bringing religion into it, for the exact reason you stated above. I'm not bible-thumping, nor proselytizing. I was asked a direct question, and I answered it. That's all.

 

[This_person]

.....pro welfare?


Just a question.

Pro-life because human life is more valuable than anything else. One person does not have the right to take the life of someone else, ever. That's why we have murder laws (like the law in CA that convicted Scott Peterson of killing his unborn child separately from killing his wife). I never understood the schitzophrenic (sp?) nature of murder laws and legalized abortion. This concept is not merely based upon religious foundation, but just on human nature.

Pro-welfare with specific guidelines to help those that absolutely need help get to a point where they no longer need help. Not a way of life, but a path to a self-sufficient life.

I still don't get why you would lump these two questions together, though. Like, if you're pro-Nascar, are you pro-flossing? I just don't see the connection.

 

[Cowgirl]

I still don't get why you would lump these two questions together, though. Like, if you're pro-Nascar, are you pro-flossing? I just don't see the connection.

Probably because there are many women who have abortions because they cannot provide for children. Soooo...if they can't provide for their children, they'll probably go on welfare.

 

[This_person]

Probably because there are many women who have abortions because they cannot provide for children. Soooo...if they can't provide for their children, they'll probably go on welfare.

So, a strict welfare reform would reduce the overall abortion rate? Welfare being so liberal tends to encourage bad decisions of having sex when you're incapable of providing for a child?

 

[Cowgirl]

So, a strict welfare reform would reduce the overall abortion rate? Welfare being so liberal tends to encourage bad decisions of having sex when you're incapable of providing for a child?

I'm just giving you the connection between the two questions. I'm liberal, and I agree with some people getting welfare. I also think that if you are on welfare and have more children, you should not be able to get more money. In fact, I think if you get pregnant while on welfare, you should be booted off the system or have your payment amounts drastically reduced.

 

[This_person]

I'm just giving you the connection between the two questions. I'm liberal, and I agree with some people getting welfare. I also think that if you are on welfare and have more children, you should not be able to get more money. In fact, I think if you get pregnant while on welfare, you should be booted off the system or have your payment amounts drastically reduced.

I believe the fortunate have a moral (sorry for bringing religious concepts back into this) obligation to help those less fortunate, so I agree that welfare is an unavoidable necessity. As I said above, I believe that the total amount of time, and total amount of times, one is blessed with welfare should be limited to that which is required to get one on their feet again.

I do understand the concept you stated about the correlation between the ideas. My point in the questions back was to state that I don't think there really is a direct correlation between welfare and abortion, that it's just an annoying, snide comment against those that feel killing babies is not a viable choice in life. My point was to register that the decision to risk getting pregnant when one cannot afford the potential resulting child is where we need to focus our massive energies of this subject, not whether it's financially sound to kill babies not wanted by their mother (again, the father is responsible, but has no voice in abortion decisions). Welfare vs. abortion is a circular argument - one cannot turn down the innocent child for welfare, which leads to a financial "entitlement" culture for young mothers who may not have as many easy opportunities as others. This leads to more children, and more welfare money. The flip side is to argue less welfare money, thus driving these poor young mothers to aborting their children.

The truth is that abortions happen <1% of the time for rape/incest, a couple of percent for the health of the mother, and overwhelmingly (96% or so) of the time for the convinience of the mother. More often than expected, well earning mothers. The "welfare mom" is a myth among both sides, and needs to stop.

 

[Cowgirl]

I believe the fortunate have a moral (sorry for bringing religious concepts back into this)

Hey, you know it's possible to have morals without being religious?!

 

[This_person]

Hey, you know it's possible to have morals without being religious?!

Yes, the ones based upon the solid foundation of "whatever I think today is right, is right"

Morals nonetheless, I agree.

 

[Cowgirl]

Yes, the ones based upon the solid foundation of "whatever I think today is right, is right"

Morals nonetheless, I agree.

Excuse me? So my morals are substandard because I have my own opinions and don't let someone tell me what to think?

 

[This_person]

Excuse me? So my morals are substandard because I have my own opinions and don't let someone tell me what to think?

You're excused, but I really don't think I said that at all.

"Substandard" would imply that I think one is better than the other. I think everyone has the right to whatever morals they choose, provided they don't inflict anything on me or mine with their version of morals.

Clearly, you think that having a foundation of standards, shared by billions of people over thousands of years, is being told "what to think", and thus below your standards. I don't judge your standards against mine, and I would appreciate you not judging mine against yours.

 

[Cowgirl]

You're excused, but I really don't think I said that at all.

"Substandard" would imply that I think one is better than the other. I think everyone has the right to whatever morals they choose, provided they don't inflict anything on me or mine with their version of morals.

Clearly, you think that having a foundation of standards, shared by billions of people over thousands of years, is being told "what to think", and thus below your standards. I don't judge your standards against mine, and I would appreciate you not judging mine against yours.

Your first post implied that non-religious morals are substandard. I never said that my morals are better than yours. I'm not judging yours...I don't care what you believe.

 

[This_person]

Your first post implied that non-religious morals are substandard. I never said that my morals are better than yours. I'm not judging yours...I don't care what you believe.

You inferred it, I did not imply it. I'm sorry you misunderstood and read into what I wrote.

Nor am I told by others what to think. I think all on my own, thank you very much. I believe the eye roll is what made me think you were implying being "told what to think" is substandard to having one's "own opinion". If you were saying that you see a religious standard as equal to a non-religious "moral" standard, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

[Xaquin44]

don't get into it with him about morals. Even though it's been proven to him numerous times that people don't need religion to have morals, he doesn't believe it.

It's pointless to argue with the wilfully stupid.

 

[Cowgirl]

You inferred it, I did not imply it. I'm sorry you misunderstood and read into what I wrote.

This comment is what made me think that:

Yes, the ones based upon the solid foundation of "whatever I think today is right, is right"
Morals nonetheless, I agree.

Nor am I told by others what to think. I think all on my own, thank you very much. I believe the eye roll is what made me think you were implying being "told what to think" is substandard to having one's "own opinion". If you were saying that you see a religious standard as equal to a non-religious "moral" standard, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

So, if you make your own opinion, and I make my own opinion, why would you have made your comment of "whatever I think today is right, is right?" According to your post, we both make our own opinions about our morals....so why would there be a difference if you're religious and I'm not?

 

[This_person]

don't get into it with him about morals. Even though it's been proven to him numerous times that people don't need religion to have morals, he doesn't believe it.

It's pointless to argue with the wilfully stupid.

I agree, but I keep discussing with you anyway. If you read back, I said they were morals. Again, you're changing my argument to fit your misconception.

I know you don't have the nuts to reply directly to me, but I suspect you'll read this sooner or later anyway.

You're wrong again. Please do not misinterpret what I'm saying for the express purpose of fitting your own argument. You can argue both sides of an issue on your own without me, don't make me a part of your twisted game.