New Obamacare Thread

[havok579257]

Our Vice president, Joe Biden, is an anti-abortion democrat.

 

I cannot stress enough that Democrats are not pro-abortion. You won't find Dems hanging out outside of Planned Parenthood with signs saying "YEAH YOU GET THAT ABORTION, YEAH!"

 

Pro choice is vastly different than pro abortion.

 

 

not a chance, no even close.  biden is a huge supporter of abortion laws.  he even said so during the debates.  he said even though he personally is against abortion he supports laws that give access to abortion.  all that is, is a cop out to try and sound anti-abortion but support it really.  biden stands against church teaching when he supports laws legalizing abortions.

 

pro choice is not different from pro abortion. 

[Isidore_of_Seville]

Those first three are not inherently against Church teaching, particularly increased military spending. It depends on what their plans are in terms of taking care of those things in a different way. The Church does not say that the government must care for the poor and education, as far as I am aware. It says that education and healthcare are human rights, and that a society must ensure that it provides these things, but that doesn't mean it must be through the government. Catholic religious all around the world feed, clothe, teach, give medical care, and house more people every day than the United States does in a month, and it does these things without government help.

 

Boy oh boy. The Church doesn't teach that we all have a responsibility to take care of each other? Is that what you just said?

 

Also, the Catholic church is the wealthiest institution in the world, feeds and houses millions around the world, but there are still millions upon millions of poor people without food and shelter. Something tells me that the Church wouldn't mind a little help in furthering it's mission. In fact, I know that they would like help because in 2011 the US Council of Arch bishops wrote Paul Ryan a letter about how his new economic policy that the GOP had adopted as it's own was decidedly inhumane. So, unless you're now going to argue against the US Council or archbishops...

Edited April 2, 2014 by Isidore_of_Seville

[Isidore_of_Seville]

not a chance, no even close.  biden is a huge supporter of abortion laws.  he even said so during the debates.  he said even though he personally is against abortion he supports laws that give access to abortion.  all that is, is a cop out to try and sound anti-abortion but support it really.  biden stands against church teaching when he supports laws legalizing abortions.

 

pro choice is not different from pro abortion. 

 

Well as airtight as your logic is, and even though you provided all those personal opinions, you still haven't actually presented a cohesive argument of anything but semantics.

 

Actually you helped me out with my argument. As you noted, Biden himself said he is personally against abortion.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Isidore_of_Seville

[havok579257]

I assumre you I am not playing games with words. Hey, I'm with you. I agree that the choice to end a life is not a good one but until scientists around the world can agree that abortion is indeed murder we won't see a sweeping change in policy, or the social norm. Look at the war on drugs for example, Nixon began to crack down with the War on Drugs and 40+ years later and there is actually more drugs use than ever, families have been destroyed, an we've wasted trillions on trillions of dollars. My point is that making drugs illegal actually made the drug problem worse, not better.

 

So, what can we do to fix the abortion problem? Clearly making them illegal won't work. What we need to do is teach, SCIENTIFICALLY (with provable, tangible, completely undeniably real facts) that abortion is indeed murder. Once we have officially scientifically have defined it as such, there will be no debate.

 

The issue you should have is with the lack of movement in the scientific community, not with lawmakers.

 

 

scientists agree that life begins at conception.  they agree the baby is a distinct life of its own.  the debate is weather that baby should be granted personhood not by science but by the united states government.  there is no debate amoung legit scientists that the life begins at conception.

[Isidore_of_Seville]

scientists agree that life begins at conception.  they agree the baby is a distinct life of its own.  the debate is weather that baby should be granted personhood not by science but by the united states government.  there is no debate amoung legit scientists that the life begins at conception.

 

IF what you're saying is true then that would make me incredibly happy! Can you please provide support of your claim that the vast majority of scientists content that abortion is murder?

 

(furthermore, if this is true, why aren't the GOP using this irrefutable evidence in their campaigns?)

Edited April 2, 2014 by Isidore_of_Seville

[havok579257]

Well as airtight as your logic is, and even though you provided all those personal opinions, you still haven't actually presented a cohesive argument of anything but semantics.

 

 

so please explain to me how someone is against abortion but helps legalize abortion and make access to abortion easier?  love to hear this one. 

 

oh and any support for making abortion legal and giving greater access to abortion is against church teachings.  no matter what biden claims he votes to make abortion legal and easier access to it.  he stands against church teaching. 

[NotreDame]

Yes, your posts read like a liberal because the only other people I've seen demonize republicans and "Capitalism" in the way you have are liberals and on other threads I've seen you support some fairly "Liberal" ideas and platforms.

 

well then i also hope you think winchester is a liberal also since you is not a supported of republicans or capitalism.  once again, i guess in your mind its all black and white.  unless you agree with everything the far right says, your a liberal.

 

you got a nice response because in these threads i mentioned i was not a liberal.  so how many times do i have to say it until you let it sink in.  

 

No, I don't think Winchester is a liberal, because it's not the fact that you criticize these things, but the way you do it, as I mentioned in my reply. 

 

And it was precisely you saying you aren't a liberal that surprised me, because - as I said - you sure sound like one.  Not a criticism.  I just thought it could be a point of dialogue.  I guess not. 

[havok579257]

IF what you're saying is true then that would make me incredibly happy! Can you please provide support of your claim that the vast majority of scientists content that abortion is murder?

 

(furthermore, if this is true, why aren't the GOP using this irrefutable evidence in their campaigns?)

 

 

republicans don't use this because the abortion debate is not about science.  its about weather a baby inside the womb is considered a person by the united states government.  no matter what science says, it can't change what the law says.  the law does not consider a baby inside the womb a person who deserves basic human rights.  science has nothing to do with the abortion debate.  most who support abortion know its a distinct life.  what they debate is weather a person inside the mother's womb is a distinct person or if the mother should be allowed to decide to do whatever she wants with her body even if that means killing a distinct life because according to the united states government, the baby is not deserving of basic human rights.  the government even goes so far to say unless the baby is completely out of the mothers womb, it still doesn't deserve basic human rights. even if everything is out except for the head, its still not deserving of basic human rights.  the democratic party supports this idea that as long as a party of the baby is inside the womb, it does not deserve basic human rights.  

[havok579257]

No, I don't think Winchester is a liberal, because it's not the fact that you criticize these things, but the way you do it, as I mentioned in my reply. 

 

And it was precisely you saying you aren't a liberal that surprised me, because - as I said - you sure sound like one.  Not a criticism.  I just thought it could be a point of dialogue.  I guess not. 

 

 

and again i will say what i have said before in these threads.  the world is not conservative and liberal.  the world is not capitalism and socialism.  their are other things out there.  

[KnightofChrist]

Hey, I'm with you. I agree that the choice to end a life is not a good one but until scientists around the world can agree that abortion is indeed murder we won't see a sweeping change in policy, or the social norm.

No, you are not with me. Science does prove that life starts at conception, and that that life is a living unique individual member of humanity. As for which humans are persons, just how many more times do we have to learn that lesson for the advocates of death to surrender? It's a grave crime that has been committed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again etc etc etc. It seems that evil just moves on to the next group when they finally loose in denying one group or another personhood.
 

So, what can we do to fix the abortion problem? Clearly making them illegal won't work. What we need to do is teach, SCIENTIFICALLY (with provable, tangible, completely undeniably real facts) that abortion is indeed murder. Once we have officially scientifically have defined it as such, there will be no debate.

The issue you should have is with the lack of movement in the scientific community, not with lawmakers.

The science already proves that life, human life starts at conception and it doesn't matter. People still use the same primitive judgement calls on which persons are persons and which are not. Such as appearance/form, cognitive abilities and usefulness to society. For some individuals perhaps, even more science would help. But it will not work for many hate groups that make money off the deal. And hate groups often do not care about the science that proves the person they do not see as a person is a person. Edited April 2, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

Boy oh boy. The Church doesn't teach that we all have a responsibility to take care of each other? Is that what you just said?

 

Also, the Catholic church is the wealthiest institution in the world, feeds and houses millions around the world, but there are still millions upon millions of poor people without food and shelter. Something tells me that the Church wouldn't mind a little help in furthering it's mission. In fact, I know that they would like help because in 2011 the US Council of Arch bishops wrote Paul Ryan a letter about how his new economic policy that the GOP had adopted as it's own was decidedly inhumane. So, unless you're now going to argue against the US Council or archbishops...

 

The Church does teach that we have a responsibility to take care of each other. It does not say that we must do this through the government.

[havok579257]

The Church does teach that we have a responsibility to take care of each other. It does not say that we must do this through the government.

 

 

true but the church would never support decreased money for the poor and increased money for the rich which the tea party supports.  its not like the tea party supports a change in government that eliminates all government spending.  they just support the same government we have now but just less money for the poor and more for the rich.

[CrossCuT]

The hate for children, the targeting of blacks, the poor and other such groups that have been on the enemies list of the Party with abortion mills to reduce their numbers.

I do not support that.

 

The republicans target blacks and the poor after they are born. Are you ok with that?

 

 

 

Republican Christians are not murdering the Homosexual people in the thousands, tens of thousands, or millions. They are not passing laws or supporting laws that allow the mass murder of homosexuals.

So as long as the wrong being done isnt murder, its ok?

 

 

 

 

No.



No.
 


No. Even if you're given examples of Republican Christians supporting Jim Crow laws for Homosexuals true the hate that allows the mass murder of children is a far greater form of hate.
 

What else need there be? There is little else that can be more wicked. Seriously why the blank do I even need anything else, and what the blank is wrong with being focused on it alone? What good does the Party do that out weights it's evil? If we were talking about any other political party in the history of this world that supported the mass murder of nonperson persons I doubt I would get any of this why are you 'harping on this', or 'but the other such-and-such party is also bad' type of stuff. I think there would be large agreement, and no fuss that such political parties, parties that have denied person hood to a group of people, would be and are hate groups.

So your only objection to how Democrats treat people is abortion? Good. We agree!

 

But you seem to think you can dismiss all the evils that the Republican party does by mistreatment of almost everyone that isnt a white male with a lot of money.

[Isidore_of_Seville]

so please explain to me how someone is against abortion but helps legalize abortion and make access to abortion easier?  love to hear this one. 

 

oh and any support for making abortion legal and giving greater access to abortion is against church teachings.  no matter what biden claims he votes to make abortion legal and easier access to it.  he stands against church teaching. 

 

Gladly! It works like this: Restricting access to abortions by making them illegal will not actually decrease the number of abortions that are had. You can debate this if you want but the evidence would be severely stacked against you. As I mentioned in a previous post, the war on drugs has cost trillions upon trillions of dollars, has not had any impact on the use of drugs, and has destroyed families in the process by placing non-violent offenders into unreasonable prison sentences. (The War on drugs is also inherently racist, but that's a story for a different time).

 

Let's stick with the war on drugs for a second. It's been proven that in countries like Portugal and several others, that decriminalizing drugs, and instead of treating drug use as a crime, they treat it for what it really is, a health issue, really works! What they do is provide health care and rehab services for drugs users instead of sending them to prison. It's actually cheaper to do, and since implementing this sytem years ago, each country that has done this has seen a dramatic reduction in drug use and with incarceration rates, which has saved their government loads of money while simultaneously helping these drug users live more healthy lives. 

 

Alright, let's take what we've learned from the War on drugs and apply that to abortion laws. First, let's all acknowledge the reasons a woman would choose to get an abortion. Let's take a look at these one by one and see how each political party addresses them.

 

1. The most common reason a woman will choose to get an abortion is that the child will be a financial burden and the mother, for whatever reason, cannot afford to care of her child. 

 

Democratic suggestions: Provide welfare benefits to single mothers. Allow easy access to affordable healthcare for her and her child. Hopefully, with a better support system, the new mother can be encouraged to feel hopeful that the country she lives in will help care for her child.

 

Republic suggestions: Cut welfare benefits across the board. It's your life, you deal with it. Don't depend on other's for help..

 

2. Another common reason that a woman will get an abortion is that it could impact her career, either at work or at school, because caring for a child takes a lot of time.

 

Democratic suggestions: Increase access to early childhood education and child care, especially for low income household.

 

Republican suggestions: Cut funding to public education, for the "good" of the education system, in the name of "good" business practices. Don't depend on other's for help, it's not fair for me to pay more taxes because you made bad life choices.

 

3. Yet another reason that a woman, a young woman in this case, might get an abortion is because she is embarrassed or ashamed of becoming pregnant at such a young age and their scared because they don't understand their bodies or their options.

 

Democratic suggestions: Anonymity in all forms. You can talk to your health providers confidentially. Your provider should be required to explain exactly how an abortion works, thep otential consequences it could have on your body and your life, and no matter what you decide, it's your decision who knows about it.

 

Republican suggestions: Parents should be involved in all sexual decisions made by every girl, not being in control of your daughter's sex life is irresponsible. 

 

4. Perhaps another reason is that a woman might value her independence more than anything else, as we all have a tendency to do. What this leads to, sometimes, is people considering their promiscuity to be the same thing as freedom or independence. This line of thinking manifests itself in the form of reckless sexual behavior which often leads to unwanted pregnancy.

 

Democracti suggetions: Sexual education should be a required part of the learning framework of our nation.

 

Republican suggestions: Keep sexual educaiton out of schools. It's up to parents to teach their children what they want them to know about sexual behavior.

 

5. You will NEVER EVER hear a woman express her reasoning for getting an abortion to be anything evil. No woman will ever say "I want to murder my unborn child." The reason is always logical.

 

In summary, what pro-lifers (like all of us) need to focus on is working on ways to lessen the need for abortions in the first place. Things like access to sexual education, child care, food; things that lead to a more supportive system of life. Creating a law that simply bans abortions will only make these problems worse and make abortions more dangerous to get.

 

Thanks!

Edited April 2, 2014 by Isidore_of_Seville

[Isidore_of_Seville]

The Church does teach that we have a responsibility to take care of each other. It does not say that we must do this through the government.

 

The church teaches that we should help our fellow man by any means available. Do you think that Jesus would have a problem with the government helping out it's people?

 

As a matter of fact, the entire purpose of a democratic government is to serve it's people. so by definition, we MUST take care of each other through the government!

Edited April 2, 2014 by Isidore_of_Seville