Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're trying to use reason and common sense here which is something that is sadly lacking on the left side of the aisle, especially with the likes of Jillian. You could point out that none of what she ranted about is true. There IS sex education in schools, there IS welfare for single mothers, there ARE free clinics out the wazoo available to low income people to obtain birth control and see to pre-natal health, there ARE facilities and charities available to low income mothers for education , job training, and child careand abortion IS legal. There are millions of dollars spent every year on these programs year after year after year. 'They' have everything on their agenda fulfilled and yet is STILL isn't enough, they would throw yet more of our money at it. It will never end, and society will never do enough to satisfy these people. Yet she'll sit there and harp about hypothetical situations as if they were reality. What the hell is she bitching about exactly?
These programs and laws are constantly under threat from conservatives, Newby. Sex education is always threatened. Welfare is always threatened. Funding for free clinics is always threatened. Funding for facilities and programs that help single and low-income mothers is always threatened. The millions of dollars spent on these programs in an attempt to help children of low income parents and in attempt to ensure that those children don't grow up and turn to crime or drugs as is prevalent among America's impoverished are constantly being threatened. Just for a woman to go to a clinic she may have to fight her way through a crowd of protestors calling her baby killer or murderer. Yet she may just be getting birth control pills. A woman's right to choose is always under threat. Just last year 3 states tried to pass laws making abortion illegal: Colorado, North Dakota, and California. And that's just the last election. So don't pretend as though the Left has everything it wants and should just sit back content, because just about everything the Left has fought for over the past century is constantly under direct threat. Unlike anything that directly affects conservatives's lives.
By historically I mean since the begging of time.I disagree. The violence around this issue is relatively new, historically speaking. Allowing a group of extremists to shape policy only invites other extremists to use violence for their own gains.Actually, as I stated above, we do include those that have committed terrorist acts in our negotiations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, those are foreign conflicts. It seems to me that we have a much greater interest in reaching a lasting and solid solution to this issue that is the source of repeated strife and violence.
You don't really have the choice to strangle it. Your choice is to reach a solution that lowers the heat level or continue to have flair ups such as this. (And I would speculate worse in coming years). Your choice.
The US has a history of MYOB and there is no law that forces anyone to abort. I see no valid compromise.
Jillian posted a list of violence surrounding this issue going back to the 1980s. the Roe decision became the law of the land in 1972. So basically, there has been some violence associated with this issue for most of the time it has been around. (There was an organization and mobilization period that had no violence.)
Like I said, the dead-enders, violence lovers, don't get to participate in the political solution. Only those that have renounced violence should participate. This follows the same model that we've used in the areas I've mentioned and that was used in Northern Ireland.
I don't think this is as serious, at least the violence isn't yet, as those cases, but the framework makes sense.
You, like they, are welcome to be intransigent. You merely invite continued unrest if you do though. But, you are welcome to deny that there is an issue.
Would you like to illustrate how they are legally and validly being threatened? I'm talking action, not 'talk' from select political activists. Talk doesn't mean a damn thing, whenever you can show me congressmen/women and senators that are advocating and supporting legistlation that supports any of your claims then you might have something to cry about.
I said valid legislation, you know... bills presented before Congress. Try again.
I said valid legislation, you know... bills presented before Congress. Try again.
Those links I posted which aren't bills presented before Congress are Executive orders, which are even more of a threat as they don't have to be voted on by votre representatives. Get real. I bet you didn't even read the articles or reports I linked.
What do welfare and WIC have to do with "a woman's right to choose?"
What do welfare and WIC have to do with "a woman's right to choose?"
I'm thinking if we paid every woman's expenses every time she gets pregnant she won't want to abort.. ya know the dirll.
I disagree. The violence around this issue is relatively new, historically speaking. Allowing a group of extremists to shape policy only invites other extremists to use violence for their own gains.Actually, as I stated above, we do include those that have committed terrorist acts in our negotiations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, those are foreign conflicts. It seems to me that we have a much greater interest in reaching a lasting and solid solution to this issue that is the source of repeated strife and violence.
You don't really have the choice to strangle it. Your choice is to reach a solution that lowers the heat level or continue to have flair ups such as this. (And I would speculate worse in coming years). Your choice.
The US has a history of MYOB and there is no law that forces anyone to abort. I see no valid compromise.
Jillian posted a list of violence surrounding this issue going back to the 1980s. the Roe decision became the law of the land in 1972. So basically, there has been some violence associated with this issue for most of the time it has been around. (There was an organization and mobilization period that had no violence.)
Like I said, the dead-enders, violence lovers, don't get to participate in the political solution. Only those that have renounced violence should participate. This follows the same model that we've used in the areas I've mentioned and that was used in Northern Ireland.
I don't think this is as serious, at least the violence isn't yet, as those cases, but the framework makes sense.
You, like they, are welcome to be intransigent. You merely invite continued unrest if you do though. But, you are welcome to deny that there is an issue.
By historically I mean since the begging of time.I disagree. The violence around this issue is relatively new, historically speaking. Allowing a group of extremists to shape policy only invites other extremists to use violence for their own gains.
The US has a history of MYOB and there is no law that forces anyone to abort. I see no valid compromise.
Jillian posted a list of violence surrounding this issue going back to the 1980s. the Roe decision became the law of the land in 1972. So basically, there has been some violence associated with this issue for most of the time it has been around. (There was an organization and mobilization period that had no violence.)
Like I said, the dead-enders, violence lovers, don't get to participate in the political solution. Only those that have renounced violence should participate. This follows the same model that we've used in the areas I've mentioned and that was used in Northern Ireland.
I don't think this is as serious, at least the violence isn't yet, as those cases, but the framework makes sense.
You, like they, are welcome to be intransigent. You merely invite continued unrest if you do though. But, you are welcome to deny that there is an issue.
And of course I do not deny there is an issue...and the issue is that one group wants to force their moral beliefs on everyone else. IMO, that is unacceptable in this country.
assholes with religion.
Good people can do bad things, but only with religion can good people do evil things.
sigh
One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.By historically I mean since the begging of time.Jillian posted a list of violence surrounding this issue going back to the 1980s. the Roe decision became the law of the land in 1972. So basically, there has been some violence associated with this issue for most of the time it has been around. (There was an organization and mobilization period that had no violence.)
Like I said, the dead-enders, violence lovers, don't get to participate in the political solution. Only those that have renounced violence should participate. This follows the same model that we've used in the areas I've mentioned and that was used in Northern Ireland.
I don't think this is as serious, at least the violence isn't yet, as those cases, but the framework makes sense.
You, like they, are welcome to be intransigent. You merely invite continued unrest if you do though. But, you are welcome to deny that there is an issue.
And of course I do not deny there is an issue...and the issue is that one group wants to force their moral beliefs on everyone else. IMO, that is unacceptable in this country.
I'm unqualified to speak to the beginning of time.
You can't avoid the fact that it is a moral issue and each side is pressing its morals upon the other. Although nobody seems to be making the case very effectively and I'm not an advocate for their side, if your honest belief is that 40,000 murders are being perpetrated in your society every year of innocent people, then it would be immoral to just sit by and say, "It's none of my business."
Isn't that what we accuse the German people of in WW II. I understand you don't view it that way, but the people in the Pro-life movement do. They cannot distinguish themselves from the Germans that knew of the death camps, but did nothing to stop them. At least in that regime, they can comfort themselves that they probably would have been killed for opposing the government. Not so in this country.
None of that justifies violence, but I hope it helps you see that morally, they are compelled to act and not sit by and MYOB.
One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.By historically I mean since the begging of time.
And of course I do not deny there is an issue...and the issue is that one group wants to force their moral beliefs on everyone else. IMO, that is unacceptable in this country.
I'm unqualified to speak to the beginning of time.
You can't avoid the fact that it is a moral issue and each side is pressing its morals upon the other. Although nobody seems to be making the case very effectively and I'm not an advocate for their side, if your honest belief is that 40,000 murders are being perpetrated in your society every year of innocent people, then it would be immoral to just sit by and say, "It's none of my business."
Isn't that what we accuse the German people of in WW II. I understand you don't view it that way, but the people in the Pro-life movement do. They cannot distinguish themselves from the Germans that knew of the death camps, but did nothing to stop them. At least in that regime, they can comfort themselves that they probably would have been killed for opposing the government. Not so in this country.
None of that justifies violence, but I hope it helps you see that morally, they are compelled to act and not sit by and MYOB.
Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.I'm unqualified to speak to the beginning of time.
You can't avoid the fact that it is a moral issue and each side is pressing its morals upon the other. Although nobody seems to be making the case very effectively and I'm not an advocate for their side, if your honest belief is that 40,000 murders are being perpetrated in your society every year of innocent people, then it would be immoral to just sit by and say, "It's none of my business."
Isn't that what we accuse the German people of in WW II. I understand you don't view it that way, but the people in the Pro-life movement do. They cannot distinguish themselves from the Germans that knew of the death camps, but did nothing to stop them. At least in that regime, they can comfort themselves that they probably would have been killed for opposing the government. Not so in this country.
None of that justifies violence, but I hope it helps you see that morally, they are compelled to act and not sit by and MYOB.
That ignores what I said in my post.
Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.
That ignores what I said in my post.
Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.That ignores what I said in my post.
Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.
You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?
Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?
Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.
Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.
You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?
Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?
Is see the dilemma here. One segment of the population views an unborn fetus within the first trimester as unviable life independent of the mother's body and so therefore the unborn fetus is neither alive, independent, and just a part of the mother's body. The other segment perceives unborn fetuses as babies which are alive, human, and therefore afforded human rights.
Should there be a definition of when life begins? Is there one already? Would it change anything?
