True conservatives are pro-choice

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Asshole, there are no death panels and the government doesn't pay for abortions. But insurance should since it is a valid medical procedure.

1) Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare | CNSnews.com



December 25, 2010
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html

Advising people of what their end of live care isn't a death panel, moron.

I'd expect as much, from those who discovered they just got caught with their foot in their mouth.

 

[BenNatuf]

This needs a thread. I would give you the opportunity to define what "human Life" is determined by physically and mentally.

It may benefit from a thread. I'm not at all convinced that I can give THE definition. And I have not made that claim. Ever.

I have a view point on the topic and if it hasn't become obvious over time, I don't mind acknowledging something up front. My conclusions are entirely mine. I have never claimed that -- on the abortion topic -- I am in possession of "sole" truth or ANY truth. I am quite unsure of how to determine the truth value of some of the most basic premises.

My philosophy stems from the observation that WE, as a whole, simply don't know and, for the most part, we cannot know. However, that fact comes with consequences. Where, as here, we don't know, we probably have an obligation to default on the side of life.

Why wouldn't that be the proper default conclusion?

A conclusion built on a false premise would be illogical to follow. Our empirical science can detect when human life meets the definition of existence.

We can change the definition of what human life is, and for some they have done this with "conception." Problem is, the door is now opened to say the sperm & ova are human life, by following their logical path of conception. And of course for the Christian, they cannot ignore this by what is commanded by their gods in the Bible, protecting the sperm from being spilled on the ground. Are we ready to say every human life is precious by this new pre-conception definition of male & female?

Aside from the fact that there is a definition of life in biology and neither a sperm nor asn egg meet it... that could be an argument. But since that is the case... NOT.

 

[Ravi]

1) Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare | CNSnews.com



December 25, 2010
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html

Advising people of what their end of live care isn't a death panel, moron.

I'd expect as much, from those who discovered they just got caught with their foot in their mouth.

That is because you are RGS dishonest. No biggie, but you're still a liar. Or RGS retarded.

 

[The T]

Advising people of what their end of live care isn't a death panel, moron.

I'd expect as much, from those who discovered they just got caught with their foot in their mouth.

That is because you are RGS dishonest. No biggie, but you're still a liar. Or RGS retarded.

The SOW returns...with Foot-In-Mouth Disease.

 

[Ravi]

I'd expect as much, from those who discovered they just got caught with their foot in their mouth.

That is because you are RGS dishonest. No biggie, but you're still a liar. Or RGS retarded.

The SOW returns...with Foot-In-Mouth Diesease.

Have another drink, dude.

 

[The T]

That is because you are RGS dishonest. No biggie, but you're still a liar. Or RGS retarded.

The SOW returns...with Foot-In-Mouth Diesease.

Have another drink, dude.

Translation: What?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Advising people of what their end of live care isn't a death panel, moron.

I'd expect as much, from those who discovered they just got caught with their foot in their mouth.

That is because you are RGS dishonest. No biggie, but you're still a liar. Or RGS retarded.

Doctors are getting "PAID" by the Federal Government with the added understanding that the doctor is to PUSH advising a patient ( according to my "paid" consultant, the Federal Government ) "that it may not be a advisable, or necessary, for you to undergo this treatment." All for the purpose of saving the Federal Government on added Heath Care Expenses.
Now what would YOU call it?

Why would the Federal Government find it necessary, to provide a paid bonus to a doctor who "advices" against possible treatment, unless its in the best interest of the Federal Government to cut ( what they deem as unnecessary ) costs? I'm sure Home Care nurses know all about Federal programs like Medicare, and the red tape that follows in trying to obtain additional treatments.

 

[shintao]

It may benefit from a thread. I'm not at all convinced that I can give THE definition. And I have not made that claim. Ever.

I have a view point on the topic and if it hasn't become obvious over time, I don't mind acknowledging something up front. My conclusions are entirely mine. I have never claimed that -- on the abortion topic -- I am in possession of "sole" truth or ANY truth. I am quite unsure of how to determine the truth value of some of the most basic premises.

My philosophy stems from the observation that WE, as a whole, simply don't know and, for the most part, we cannot know. However, that fact comes with consequences. Where, as here, we don't know, we probably have an obligation to default on the side of life.

Why wouldn't that be the proper default conclusion?

A conclusion built on a false premise would be illogical to follow. Our empirical science can detect when human life meets the definition of existence.

We can change the definition of what human life is, and for some they have done this with "conception." Problem is, the door is now opened to say the sperm & ova are human life, by following their logical path of conception. And of course for the Christian, they cannot ignore this by what is commanded by their gods in the Bible, protecting the sperm from being spilled on the ground. Are we ready to say every human life is precious by this new pre-conception definition of male & female?

The only thing here ILLOGICAL...is YOU.

Someone left the monkey cage open again!!!

 

[shintao]

It may benefit from a thread. I'm not at all convinced that I can give THE definition. And I have not made that claim. Ever.

I have a view point on the topic and if it hasn't become obvious over time, I don't mind acknowledging something up front. My conclusions are entirely mine. I have never claimed that -- on the abortion topic -- I am in possession of "sole" truth or ANY truth. I am quite unsure of how to determine the truth value of some of the most basic premises.

My philosophy stems from the observation that WE, as a whole, simply don't know and, for the most part, we cannot know. However, that fact comes with consequences. Where, as here, we don't know, we probably have an obligation to default on the side of life.

Why wouldn't that be the proper default conclusion?

A conclusion built on a false premise would be illogical to follow. Our empirical science can detect when human life meets the definition of existence.

We can change the definition of what human life is, and for some they have done this with "conception." Problem is, the door is now opened to say the sperm & ova are human life, by following their logical path of conception. And of course for the Christian, they cannot ignore this by what is commanded by their gods in the Bible, protecting the sperm from being spilled on the ground. Are we ready to say every human life is precious by this new pre-conception definition of male & female?

Aside from the fact that there is a definition of life in biology and neither a sperm nor asn egg meet it... that could be an argument. But since that is the case... NOT.

Argue your case with John Hopkins who says otherwise.

 

[Wingsofwind]

I disagree.

It all comes down to when you believe life begins. If you believe it begins at conception, or very shortly after, then another human doesn't have a right to decide if another lives or dies. In this case, the state absolutely should protect someone from being killed by another human (abortion). This is consistent with the conservative philosophy.

If you believe that life does not begin at conception or shortly after, and instead begins at another predetermined point or at the actual birth itself, then it is the individual right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. Without state interference. This is also consistent with the conservative philosophy.

I very, very, very rarely enter into the abortion debate. There is no answer because it really does boil down to when you believe life begins. And we as humans don't really have a definitive answer. Myself, I subscribe to the first option above. But I can recognize how, if viewed differently, an opposite view can be consistent with a conservative philosophy.

I have a problem with the 'belief' system you provied here. Just because one believes in something does NOT make it true.

If one believes life does not start untill birth, then why do we have babies living after an abortion that was performed before the 6th month point in pregnancy? Do you see the problem with this kind of belief?

When we do not know 'for sure' when life starts, we should NOT just assume and potentially kill a living being. For this reason, regardless of one's belief, there should be no abortions unless the woman's life is at stake. If a woman does not want to have a baby she should make the proper preporations to make sure she does not become pregnant. Even if that means she does not have intercorse untill she can make the right preprotations. Ignorance is NOT an excuse.

And as to women who get pregnant due to rape, please see my first post in this thread.

People who support abortions for any reason other than a medical problem that threatens the life of the woman are selfish people and are no differnt than a murderer.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

*Facepalm*

The title of this thread is just such epic epic fail.

No need to read the OP.

 

[Wingsofwind]

no amount of schooling is sufficient to teach a cat how to fly

but with the help of science and a catapult?

Bottle rockets.

Really big ones....

You two just made my night .

I needed a good laugh

 

[Wingsofwind]

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

Already we have someone denying that a living human organism is alive and human.

You didn't see my first post in this thread did you?

 

[Wingsofwind]

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

Irony, thy name is JB.

You are 100% correct, most people cannot discuss the issue honestly, including you when you equate abortion with someone invading your home and putting a bullet in your head.

Both are, by definition, homicide

S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)

Care to explain the difference?

The probem with the definition you use is that one can use this to say someone protecting themselves by killing their attacker is commiting homicide.

Also to say a woman that gets an abortion because her life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy is saying she is commiting homicide by protecting herself.

So when is 'the killing of a human being by another human being' NOT homicide?

 

[MajinLink]

Conservative is a generally term. There is no true conservative. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the old standards of racism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism to come back or you don't think the government can afford anyting but they can afford to give out tax cuts.

 

[mdn2000]

Conservative is a generally term. There is no true conservative. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the old standards of racism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism to come back or you don't think the government can afford anyting but they can afford to give out tax cuts.

The old standards of racism was democrat, think of Woodrow Wilson screening a KKK movie at the White House and praising it, think of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, KKK leader, served the Democrats for fifty years, sexism, the same can be said, religious fundamentalism always both parties and if the Democrats are the party of minorities they better wake up, minorities are religious fundamentalist. I must say, the government has nothing to give me that they did not confiscate from me in the first place. Only under Marxism does the state own all property. What you have stated there is no private property. Everything either belongs to the government or it belongs to the people.

Now under the Democrats, government decides when life begins, and ends.
.

 

[MajinLink]

Conservative is a generally term. There is no true conservative. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the old standards of racism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism to come back or you don't think the government can afford anyting but they can afford to give out tax cuts.

The old standards of racism was democrat, think of Woodrow Wilson screening a KKK movie at the White House and praising it, think of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, KKK leader, served the Democrats for fifty years, sexism, the same can be said, religious fundamentalism always both parties and if the Democrats are the party of minorities they better wake up, minorities are religious fundamentalist. I must say, the government has nothing to give me that they did not confiscate from me in the first place. Only under Marxism does the state own all property. What you have stated there is no private property. Everything either belongs to the government or it belongs to the people.

Now under the Democrats, government decides when life begins, and ends.
.

Back in those days each party had their own liberal, conservative and moderate wings. A lot of liberals switched in FDR's time, but most of the racists didn't realign to the Republican party until around JFK/LBJ/Nixon

 

[mdn2000]

Conservative is a generally term. There is no true conservative. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the old standards of racism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism to come back or you don't think the government can afford anyting but they can afford to give out tax cuts.

The old standards of racism was democrat, think of Woodrow Wilson screening a KKK movie at the White House and praising it, think of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, KKK leader, served the Democrats for fifty years, sexism, the same can be said, religious fundamentalism always both parties and if the Democrats are the party of minorities they better wake up, minorities are religious fundamentalist. I must say, the government has nothing to give me that they did not confiscate from me in the first place. Only under Marxism does the state own all property. What you have stated there is no private property. Everything either belongs to the government or it belongs to the people.

Now under the Democrats, government decides when life begins, and ends.
.

Back in those days each party had their own liberal, conservative and moderate wings. A lot of liberals switched in FDR's time, but most of the racists didn't realign to the Republican party until around JFK/LBJ/Nixon

How old are you, your belief has no basis in the reality I lived, I grew up in Detroit, using the word ****** was common, it was everyday. Everyone I knew was Democrats and Union members. In Democratic Detroit we had white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, no mixed neighborhoods. When busing was introduced it was not done in Michigan, not where I lived. We had the riots in I think 66 or 67, I was a bit to young to remember but I do remember we could never go to a Baseball game because whites were murdered in Detroit.

Black Detroit was known as the murder capital of the world. Blacks had all the opportunity of anyone in the world, it was not racism that destroyed Detroit, it was political correctness and affirmative action.

You can define Republicans any way you like, I am a pure white, middle aged, conservative. To even suggest we are the racist shows complete ignorance of people, culture, tradition, history, and human nature.

 

[Vast LWC]

False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.

Actually, while I see your general point, I fear you are confusing your terms. What you are describing is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

I Conservative generally supports government interference where many social matters (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Nation Building, etc) are concerned, but does not support government interference where financial or economic matters are concerned.

A Libertarian does not support any interference period.

That's why, even though I'm of the leftish persuasion, I have a good amount of respect for people like Ron Paul.

 

[Mad Scientist]

True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.

Actually, we're Pro Life. That would mean you are Pro Death. Ripping arms and legs off of a baby shouldn't be a "choice".