Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

"At that age, they couldn't become pregnant anyways, so I really don't care."

It doesn't matter, it's still wrong.

""I don't think they would have that kind of common knowledge. If they don't, then children up to the age of 13 really don't either."

Not true.  I knew by the time I was 13."

That's just you. So...you went around asking other people as well?

"It most certainly is not.  Is banning murder just as bad as the murder itself? And yes, we are talking about 'murder' - late term abortions performed on fetuses that could be considered more or less 'human.'

I'm for a good BAN on all late term abortions with the exceptions noted.  The only thing left to think about is what constitutes 'late.'"

People and the government exercises the right to kill by the Death Penalty and by sending families' children oversees to fight baseless wars. That right to kill is more horrid than a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy or not.

"Did you even read what I said? If the woman's life is in serious jeopardy, abortion is fine provided it is done in a humane manner.  I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this."

You should've stated your exact position on this instead of jumping around like a rabbit, misleading other people on your views. One moment you're up for a complete ban, then the next you want exceptions.

""I also said it before that: "So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

That's what you said that time.  You are tooting a different horn now than you were a while back."

I've been tooting the same horn for a quite a while now. You just misunderstood.

""But you see, those late-term abortions only happen due to medical reasons."

I don't know that.  Furthermore, while I don't *know* they are done inhumanely, I don't know that there are laws concerning this aspect of things, and there most definitely should be."

They are done for medical reasons. Also, many, if not all states have already imposed strict regulations on late-term abortions.

""Also, notice I was talking about mothers. Laws don't help mothers keep food in their cabinets so she may get the proper nutrition she needs to give her child a healthy start. You are being completely against life and liberty here."

No I'm not.  I didn't mention the formation of any laws, I just noted how irresponsible and careless women who attempt to create a baby while full of diseases and health problems are."

I don't see it as careless, since she already knew of the risks involved to her health, and decided to have a child out of good conscience and raise a family with her hubby. :D

""As crazy as it sounds, if that's what you wanna believe then believe it I don't give a damn, just stay out of my face from it."

How can you be missing this point? At some point, people obviously have to 'push' murder laws into the faces of others.  I want to extend government protection to unborn who are old enough to be considered human lives.. I see nothing wrong with this.  What, you want anarchy? Remove laws against murder and rape as well? .."

I was simply playing by your own game. If you want to believe something just keep it out of my face. And no, I'm not advocating those law removals. Put more words in my mouth please. If I was I'd tell you. :D

"No it wasn't.  Bill Gates had a few of his inalienable rights sacrificed in my analogy for the utilitarian effect of benefitting a larger group of people... and likewise, you advocate doing the same thing with fetuses - sacrificing some inalienable rights simply due to the fact that another group is larger.  The analogy was a good one."

That analogy is still hooplah.

"Yes, and they can exercise their free-will and not have sex.  You act like a guy's dick is like a huge magnet and no matter what he does, it will drag him along until it reaches someone's vagina."

For "some" men it's like that. That's why there are brothels.

"Even sex-crazed men can exercise something called 'self-control.'"

I have yet to find one that has.

"No, but there are many ugly people who are deprived, and must abstain, yet still are able to live and get by."

I have never came across that situation. So..the majority of people whom are deprived are ugly people? Ugly people, pretty people, fair people, they're all people to me.

"They don't really have a choice but to control themselves.. or get thrown in jail for rape if they don't."

That reminds me of.. http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp

"Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Jekyll

Quite a famous story.  Enjoy."

Okay, I'll look at it later then.

>>398

"I mean that they *could* have this knowledge."

Comprehensive sex-ed starting at the fifth-sixth grade level. Hell, with the way this society is, I wouldn't care if it was started at the fourth grade level.

"If I walk up and touch a red-hot burner because I didn't know any better, but didn't take the time to learn not to beforehand either, and I get burned, that's my fault."

Children don't take the time to learn. Moreover, how would they know if it would harm them in the first place? They assume that nothing would happen and thought it would be alright in their innocent little minds. In turn, the parent would have to tell them that it hurt them.

"Many people do things that are against the law without knowing it, but this doesn't mean they should be immune to the said law"

It would depend on what kind of law was broken. Like.. In my state, there's a law that forbids people from sleeping on top of refrigerators at night. People do not know that law, moreover, it's a stupid law. Lol. Whenever I tell someone about they look at me like.. "Huh?!" O_O

"nor does the fact that people who might not know their actions will lead them to becoming pregnant make them not at fault for becoming pregnant"

It would not be their fault unless they already knew beforehand. This is why we need sex-ed at a minor's level so they'd understand what happens during sex. You can't expect a young child to know what sex is unless someone tells them about it. And no, the stork and cabbage patch stories won't suffice.

"Ignorance is no excuse - it is your responsibility to care for yourself and educate yourself."

Try telling that to a child.

"Children don't take the time to learn. Moreover, how would they know if it would harm them in the first place? They assume that nothing would happen and thought it would be alright in their innocent little minds. In turn, the parent would have to tell them that it hurt them." Well, children can be taught everything, from that guns are bad or that god is good. The thing is that negative stimulis have stronger effect than positive stimulus in general. Sex, on the other hand, is the basic force of all normal human behavior, so telling people to abstain *while making contraceptives, p-pills, sex-ed and abortion clinics scarce while demonizing everybody ELSE because some foetuses get turned into mush while they have a sliver of sentience* is not brave, libertarian, about making people take responsibility, protecting the innocent or anything but a result of utter, utter retardation or sad convictions. Get yourself a better country, then we can talk about banning abortions.

>>402
"Get yourself a better country, then we can talk about banning abortions."

Two wrongs don't make a right.  We talk about banning abortions now, period. 

The fact that the republicans have other flaws with them does not excuse the left for its position on abortion.

>>403

"Two wrongs don't make a right.  We talk about banning abortions now, period."

Baseless conjecture.

>>402 has a point though.

Also, the Republicans are FAR more flawed with the abortion shit than the Left.

>>401
"At that age, they couldn't become pregnant anyways, so I really don't care."

"It doesn't matter, it's still wrong."

For the sake of avoiding going off topic, assume I agree.  This doesn't make it right to take other people's money from them forcibly to fund things they don't believe in, just because you do.  Sex ed is not a must, and therefore shouldn't be funded.  The government is there to protect us from each other, and protect our freedoms from foreign invasion, and that's it.

"That's just you. So...you went around asking other people as well?"

The point is is that if I knew, they can too.  If they don't, its their fault.

"People and the government exercises the right to kill by the Death Penalty and by sending families' children oversees to fight baseless wars. That right to kill is more horrid than a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy or not."

Firstly, two wrongs does not make a right.  If abortion is wrong, it should be banned period, regardless of what else the government is doing.  If the death penalty is wrong, go lecture me about that in another debate.  This debate is about abortion, not the death penalty or wars of foreign aggression.  Abortion is a seperate issue, and just because we have the death penalty and wars of foreign aggression doesn't change the fact that late term abortions are wrong and should be banned.

"You should've stated your exact position on this instead of jumping around like a rabbit, misleading other people on your views. One moment you're up for a complete ban, then the next you want exceptions."

I have said already, assume I say 'with said exceptions' every time I ask for a ban from here on out, unless I said otherwise.  I guess you missed it? My position has been more or less the same throughout this thread. 

"I've been tooting the same horn for a quite a while now. You just misunderstood."

No, you've went from advocating complete abortion rights, from conception until birth to advocating very strict regulation of abortion (my position, which you have recently said you now see eye to eye with).

"They are done for medical reasons. Also, many, if not all states have already imposed strict regulations on late-term abortions."

Just because there are strict regulations doesn't mean that they are done humanely.  I am going to have to tighten my position even more if there is no way for it to be done humanely.  Legalized torment of helpless human lives doesn't sound appealing to me.

"I don't see it as careless, since she already knew of the risks involved to her health, and decided to have a child out of good conscience and raise a family with her hubby. :D"

OK, so you have established that late term abortions are a horrible practice, and should be banned except when necessary for a mother's life, or when the fetus is horribly deformed or some such. 

Now, assuming that said woman knows she has health problems, and attempts to get pregnant anyways, knowing that it might well end up in complications like are discussed in the paragraph above (late term abortions) or produce an unhealthy baby, she is basically gambling with her future baby, and I find this sick and irresponsible. 

"I was simply playing by your own game. If you want to believe something just keep it out of my face. And no, I'm not advocating those law removals. Put more words in my mouth please. If I was I'd tell you. :D"

How were you playing by my 'game'? I didn't put more words in your mouth, you said them, not me.

"That analogy is still hooplah."

So I've given some justification and support of my analogy, while you call it 'hooplah', whatever the hell that means.  Good to see you have a convincing reason/argument why the analogy was bad. 

"For "some" men it's like that. That's why there are brothels."

Brothels are illegal or nonexistant practically everywhere.  Some people just have to get along without, or settle for jacking off.  Face it, abstinence is possible, sex is *not* a constant, and people have free will - including the ability to decide not to have sex. 

"Even sex-crazed men can exercise something called 'self-control.'"

"I have yet to find one that has."

I have. 

"I have never came across that situation. So..the majority of people whom are deprived are ugly people? Ugly people, pretty people, fair people, they're all people to me."

Exactly.  People have the ability to exercise self-control over this decision, and it is proven by those who find themselves unable to find partners.

"That reminds me of.. http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp";

The fact that one person apparently chose not to hold himself back does not prove that everyone is incapable of holding themselves back (abstaining from sex).  People have free will, and are able to simply decide not to have sex. 

"Comprehensive sex-ed starting at the fifth-sixth grade level. Hell, with the way this society is, I wouldn't care if it was started at the fourth grade level."

Who cares when it starts? It shouldn't start.  If you want it, get it with your own money for your kids. 

"Children don't take the time to learn."

Too bad for them.

"Moreover, how would they know if it would harm them in the first place?"

I knew.

"They assume that nothing would happen and thought it would be alright in their innocent little minds."

Kids aren't as dumb as you think.  By about the time they are old enough to really, *really* start wanting to have sex, they have already had plenty of opportunities to learn about it.

"In turn, the parent would have to tell them that it hurt them."

You think the only way to learn about sex is through your parents or through your teacher? LOL.  My parents never told me shit about sex, and I learned and turned out fine.

"It would depend on what kind of law was broken. Like.. In my state, there's a law that forbids people from sleeping on top of refrigerators at night. People do not know that law, moreover, it's a stupid law. Lol. Whenever I tell someone about they look at me like.. "Huh?!" O_O"

I agree, that's a stupid law - and people shouldn't have to follow it.  But we aren't talking about 'stupid laws' or victimless crimes like that, we are talking about serious things that effect other people than yourself.

"It would not be their fault unless they already knew beforehand."

Once again, you change positions.  First, people are mindless, uncontrollable people who are unable to control their dicks and private parts, then all a sudden people have free will, and *THEN* all a sudden it *would* be their fault if they knew beforehand.

Now as for the actual problems with the statement in and of itself..  This is wrong because they took an action without knowing (within reason) what would happen after taking it.  People have free will, and they have the ability to take a vast number of actions, and do certain things.  These actions have consequences, and before taking an action, they should learn about the action if they don't know anything about it before taking the action, to make sure it is an OK thing to do, that won't hurt them, violate laws, or do things like this.  The fact that they didn't know does not excuse them, especially since they could have known - yet didn't bother to, and took the action anyhow. 

"This is why we need sex-ed at a minor's level so they'd understand what happens during sex."

Minors don't need sex-ed to learn about sex.

"You can't expect a young child to know what sex is unless someone tells them about it."

Sure, just like knowing about anything.  A good chunk of things that we know we learn from other peoples, or from learning sources others have made - such as books, computers, televisions, radios, etc, you name it.  These things exist, and you can always look up 'sex' in an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or type it into a search engine.  You can ask your teacher, your parents, your relatives, your siblings, there are just so many ways to learn about it, and opportunities to do so.  Children don't *need* sex-ed to learn about sex.  Your average american kid has every opportunity within reason to learn about it on his own, just like I did.

"Try telling that to a child."

Sure.  Children aren't as dumb and inept as you think.  By the time they are old enough to get pregnant, or even get their hormones pumping so they actually start *wanting* to have sex in the first place, they have already been here long enough and had plenty of opportunities to learn on their own, or ask others questions.

"Sex ed is not a must, and therefore shouldn't be funded.  The government is there to protect us from each other, and protect our freedoms from foreign invasion, and that's it."

Is is a MUST if you want to educate people in order to give the ammo they need to make informed decisions on their actions and to see the number of unwanted pregnancies go down. (Self-defeatist.) Also, it is the government's job to provide social services, such as education, is it not?

"Firstly, two wrongs does not make a right.  If abortion is wrong, it should be banned period, regardless of what else the government is doing.  If the death penalty is wrong, go lecture me about that in another debate.  This debate is about abortion, not the death penalty or wars of foreign aggression.  Abortion is a seperate issue, and just because we have the death penalty and wars of foreign aggression doesn't change the fact that late term abortions are wrong and should be banned."

I stand firm on what I said, it reveals your hypocrisy.

"No, you've went from advocating complete abortion rights, from conception until birth to advocating very strict regulation of abortion (my position, which you have recently said you now see eye to eye with)."

I detest.

"Just because there are strict regulations doesn't mean that they are done humanely.  I am going to have to tighten my position even more if there is no way for it to be done humanely."

You admit to yourself that you don't know if it is done humanely or not. You can't support your position with baseless conjecture. Late-term abortions are done humanely, from my research.

"Legalized torment of helpless human lives doesn't sound appealing to me."

I Lol'd.

"Now, assuming that said woman knows she has health problems, and attempts to get pregnant anyways, knowing that it might well end up in complications like are discussed in the paragraph above (late term abortions) or produce an unhealthy baby, she is basically gambling with her future baby, and I find this sick and irresponsible."

So..you want to ban/punish parents with health problems as afformentioned from raising a family? That's more sick and wrong. It's like you want people with health problems to drop dead and not experience the joys of raising a family. ...  So..it's only the baby that matters to you? Not the parents? You show sympathy for the baby only but not the parents..

"So I've given some justification and support of my analogy, while you call it 'hooplah', whatever the hell that means."

Xel already refuted it.

"Good to see you have a convincing reason/argument why the analogy was bad."

Thanks.

"Brothels are illegal or nonexistant practically everywhere."

I know of a few vague locations of brothels in my state, as well as in other states. Nebraska even has brothels that cater to women.

""I have never came across that situation. So..the majority of people whom are deprived are ugly people? Ugly people, pretty people, fair people, they're all people to me."

Exactly.  People have the ability to exercise self-control over this decision, and it is proven by those who find themselves unable to find partners."

I find that laughable. So you peek into other people's bed habits? People are still people, no matter whom they are on the outside. In fact, people just don't go for looks now-a-days, they go for personality, which is more important. The ugliest person in the world may still be a winner at heart.

""Comprehensive sex-ed starting at the fifth-sixth grade level. Hell, with the way this society is, I wouldn't care if it was started at the fourth grade level."

Who cares when it starts? It shouldn't start."

So you're contradicting yourself and your position. You don't want comprehensive sex-ed which will cut unwanted pregnancies so you shouldn't have a say on this debate. Get the Hell out.

"If you want it, get it with your own money for your kids."

Very, very spiteful. It is the government's job to provide those services.

""Children don't take the time to learn."

Too bad for them."

Spiteful.. Get the Hell out.

""Moreover, how would they know if it would harm them in the first place?"

I knew."

You do not speak for other people. Just because you knew something doesn't mean that others do.

"Kids aren't as dumb as you think.  By about the time they are old enough to really, *really* start wanting to have sex, they have already had plenty of opportunities to learn about it."

Alas, those opportunities are becoming quite scarce since faggots are cutting comprehensive sex-ed.

""In turn, the parent would have to tell them that it hurt them."

You think the only way to learn about sex is through your parents or through your teacher? LOL.  My parents never told me shit about sex, and I learned and turned out fine."

Again, you don't speak for other people.

""This is why we need sex-ed at a minor's level so they'd understand what happens during sex."

Minors don't need sex-ed to learn about sex."

In this day and age they do.

"Children don't *need* sex-ed to learn about sex.  Your average american kid has every opportunity within reason to learn about it on his own, just like I did."

They do in this day and age since most people are quiet or don't want to talk about the subject to a minor.

"Sure.  Children aren't as dumb and inept as you think.  By the time they are old enough to get pregnant, or even get their hormones pumping so they actually start *wanting* to have sex in the first place, they have already been here long enough and had plenty of opportunities to learn on their own, or ask others questions."

Hmm.. does this apply to six year olds as well? I just read about three male minors ages 5-7 raping a two year old female. Comprehensive is needed so they'll have the ammo they need at a direct manner so they make informed decisions. You're expecting too much of children. You are living in a fantasy world.

You really don't care for any one other than fricken fetuses/babies. You don't show sympathy for any one whom isn't a fetus/baby. Go hug one. You're also against the establishment of comprehensive sex-ed/prevention methods. You are also a very..very spiteful person. You shouldn't be in this debate.

>>404
"Baseless conjecture."

There is absolutely no reason not to talk about severely restricting access to abortions right now.  If you don't want to 'talk about banning abortion', go to another thread.

">>402 has a point though."

That restricting contraceptives isn't very libertarian? I have to agree.  Outside of that, no not really.

"Also, the Republicans are FAR more flawed with the abortion shit than the Left."

I disagree.  The choice seems to be to allow all abortions, or to allow no abortions.  I don't think either is right, but I'd much rather take the latter over the former.


>>406
"Sex ed is not a must, and therefore shouldn't be funded.  The government is there to protect us from each other, and protect our freedoms from foreign invasion, and that's it."

"Is is a MUST if you want to educate people in order to give the ammo they need to make informed decisions on their actions and to see the number of unwanted pregnancies go down."

No it isn't.  Just hold people accountable, and punish irresponsibility, while rewarding responsibility.  This will encourage people to be more responsible.  Simple as that, really.

"(Self-defeatist.) Also, it is the government's job to provide social services, such as education, is it not?"

No.  Schools should be privatized.  Private schools are far superior as well, and contribute to ending the chain of poverty by giving everyone a superior education. 

Originally, Jefferson argued that we should have public education for the sake of enabling your average commoner to be able to make intelligent decisions at the polls.  Some people didn't believe your average person was educated or intelligent enough to do this.  This was much of the reason people of times past argued for public education.  Welfare and other 'social services' though? No.  Education is a maybe - but we shouldn't neglect the *reason* that we implimented public education - to keep voters informed. 

"I stand firm on what I said, it reveals your hypocrisy."

'People and the government exercises the right to kill by the Death Penalty and by sending families' children oversees to fight baseless wars. That right to kill is more horrid than a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy or not.' -Kumori

Actually, it doesn't reveal shit.  I am against the war, and against the death penalty.  Hmm, and you bitch about *me* making assumptions about *you*? HA.  And also, again, it again does not change the fact that late term abortions should be banned.  Two wrongs does not make a right.

"I detest."

So? Do you know what 'detest' means?

"Just because there are strict regulations doesn't mean that they are done humanely.  I am going to have to tighten my position even more if there is no way for it to be done humanely."

"You admit to yourself that you don't know if it is done humanely or not. You can't support your position with baseless conjecture. Late-term abortions are done humanely, from my research."

Did you notice that I said 'if' there is no way for them to be done humanely? Even if they are generally done humanely, I want laws passed making it illegal for them to *not* be done humanely.  Further proceed with the restrictions/bans I had in mind earlier, and the problem seems more or less solved for hte time being.  I don't think I want to take your word for it, bearing in mind your general position on abortion.

"I Lol'd."

What, you think that's ok? I see, so Bush can't torture terrorists, but abortionists can torture unborn babies.  You liberals are hilarious.  (and no, I am not advocating or saying I agree with torture - but this is just hilarious)

"Now, assuming that said woman knows she has health problems, and attempts to get pregnant anyways, knowing that it might well end up in complications like are discussed in the paragraph above (late term abortions) or produce an unhealthy baby, she is basically gambling with her future baby, and I find this sick and irresponsible."

"So..you want to ban/punish parents with health problems as afformentioned from raising a family? That's more sick and wrong. It's like you want people with health problems to drop dead and not experience the joys of raising a family. ..."

Putting more words in my mouth? Show me where I advocated this.

"So..it's only the baby that matters to you? Not the parents? You show sympathy for the baby only but not the parents.."

No, everyone matters to me.  However, I think people who put their babies at risk by attempting to become pregnant and have children *WHILE* having serious health problems are irresponsible at best.

"Xel already refuted it."

And I refuted his refutation.

"Thanks."

I'll try to remember to label some of my less-obvious sarcasm in the future.

"Brothels are illegal or nonexistant practically everywhere."

"I know of a few vague locations of brothels in my state, as well as in other states. Nebraska even has brothels that cater to women."

Yeah, so do I, so what? They are generally illegal though, and very rare.  Again, practically nonexistant, and you very likely won't generally come across them unless you go looking for them specifically.

"I find that laughable. So you peek into other people's bed habits?"

LOL? Yeah, like I don't know anyone, talk to anyone, or in general communicate with anyone.  Get real, there are some people out there who simply don't have girlfriends, and don't get any. 

"People are still people, no matter whom they are on the outside."

I never said they weren't.

"In fact, people just don't go for looks now-a-days, they go for personality, which is more important."

Personality is well over 90% of the time second to looks though.  Hmm... this really doesn't have shit to do with what I was saying.  For whatever reason, looks, personality, you name it, some people just don't get any, and a good portion of them get by.  There are people who can and do abstain from having sex.  It *is* possible, and not only that, has been done and is being done by a very large number of people.

"The ugliest person in the world may still be a winner at heart."

Sure.  So what? I don't really give a fuck whether people are winners at heart, or some other bullshit.  My point is is that some people are just not attractive, either in looks, or in personality.  Some people don't get any, or very rarely get any, and a huge chunk of said people get by fine.  Abstinence *is* possible.

"So you're contradicting yourself and your position. You don't want comprehensive sex-ed which will cut unwanted pregnancies so you shouldn't have a say on this debate. Get the Hell out."

You get the hell out.  I am against sex-ed because it is fundamentally inconsistent with libertarianism.  If you want sex-ed, I really don't care - pay for it yourself.  I'm not against sex-ed.  I'm against mandatory public-funded sex-ed.

"Very, very spiteful. It is the government's job to provide those services."

It wasn't a spiteful comment.  I'd say you telling me to 'get the hell out' of this discussion because I disagree with you on something was 'spiteful,' but whatever. 

Anyway, about this comment.  I like how you say it is the 'government's job' - which leads people to think that 'the government' will be paying for it.  Unfortunately, what many people don't understand, is that this means *they* will be paying for it.   That is to say, not them specifically, but the public, and they will not be allowed to *not* pay for it, regardless of whether the program is necessary or not, even though it is not necessary. 

It isn't necessary.  The government is there to provide that which is necessary for the continuation and preservation of a free society, and the rest is to be left to individuals.  This might include public education to educate voters, but it obviously does not include sex-ed. 

"Spiteful.. Get the Hell out."

'Spiteful,' says the person who has, for the *second* time, in the *same post* told me to 'get the hell out'? LOL.

""Moreover, how would they know if it would harm them in the first place?"

I knew."

"You do not speak for other people. Just because you knew something doesn't mean that others do."

That's right.  Just because I know something, does not mean others *do.* It does, however, mean that others *can,* or at least the general public *can.*  The government shouldn't be doing what individuals can clearly do for themselves on an individual basis, generally speaking. 

"Alas, those opportunities are becoming quite scarce since faggots are cutting comprehensive sex-ed."

Ah, so its the 'faggots' fault, says she who calls *me* 'spiteful.'

Anyway, on with the refutation.  It is not the 'faggots' fault that people don't know their dick from a hole in the ground, sorry.  This is *their* fault, or *possibly* their parent's fault.  It is not the fault of said 'faggots' for opposing sex-ed.  The simple fact that publicly funded sex-ed classes don't exist, does *not* mean that people are somehow unable to learn about sex.  If they don't take the time to learn, it is *their* fault as individuals, not the fault of said 'faggots.'

"Again, you don't speak for other people."

Again, you fail to grasp a basic concept.  I am not saying that the fact that I know, everyone knows, I am saying that the fact that I found out for myself means that the general public is capable of finding out for theirselves.  I am not a super unusual person.  If I can, they can.  If they don't, that's their fault, and I say hold 'em accountable.

"In this day and age they do."

Actually, the fact that we live in this day and age makes it easier to learn about sex regardless of whether there is, or is not sexual education classes. 

"They do in this day and age since most people are quiet or don't want to talk about the subject to a minor."

People are getting more 'loose' and 'open' about talking about sex and matters that were once considered 'dirty.'  Due to this, as well as many of the advances in technology, and the rise in standard of living, and in public resources, sex-ed is not needed.

"Hmm.. does this apply to six year olds as well? I just read about three male minors ages 5-7 raping a two year old female."

Oh really? Sounds *very* widespread! We must mobilize the nation's forces, and expend our resources dealing with this massive, MASSIVE epidemic! 

By golly, if we don't have institutionalized sex-ed, well hell, you never know what might happen! The 3rd graders might just jump all over each other and start gang raping each other at recess! AHHH!!

"Comprehensive is needed so they'll have the ammo they need at a direct manner so they make informed decisions. You're expecting too much of children. You are living in a fantasy world."

No, last I checked I live in the real world.  By the time they are able to have sex, by the way, they are not children, they will be adolescents, or 'young adults.', whichever you prefer.

"You really don't care for any one other than fricken fetuses/babies."

That's not true.  I'm a very compassionate person.

"You don't show sympathy for any one whom isn't a fetus/baby."

See above.

"Go hug one."

Ha.  And, again, you call *me* 'spiteful.' 

"You're also against the establishment of comprehensive sex-ed/prevention methods."

No I'm not.  I'm against *public* establishment of said methods.  I have no issue whatsoever with voluntary, private forms of this.

"You are also a very..very spiteful person."

LOL.  Should I list all the spiteful comments you have directed at me in this post? Don't make me laugh... please... hahaha.

"You shouldn't be in this debate."

Why? I have a legitimate opinion regarding politics, and this topic specifically.  I am here to voice it and to debate said topic.  That is the purpose of both this post, and the board that contains it.

BORING

>>408
If its boring, don't read it. 

>>405 Completely disagree with that. If libertarianism means that parents can teach their children whatever, I am not a complete libertarian. Public education and national healthcare are not necessarily evil (the worst word in existance, just in case).

"The point is is that if I knew, they can too.  If they don't, its their fault." Gahahahaha!

"Who cares when it starts? It shouldn't start.  If you want it, get it with your own money for your kids." The thing is that we would like to take some of your money, not because we believe that it is right but because it would pain you.
"I knew." Yawn.
"You think the only way to learn about sex is through your parents or through your teacher? LOL.  My parents never told me shit about sex, and I learned and turned out fine." That could just as well be the exception that confirms the rule. Common sense is nothing compared to positivism.
"Sure.  Children aren't as dumb and inept as you think.  By the time they are old enough to get pregnant, or even get their hormones pumping so they actually start *wanting* to have sex in the first place, they have already been here long enough and had plenty of opportunities to learn on their own, or ask others questions." Keyword is could. A lack of impossibility doesn't cause certainty.

And your analogy is still sub-par, as is many parts of your country. Worry about them.

"No it isn't.  Just hold people accountable, and punish irresponsibility, while rewarding responsibility.  This will encourage people to be more responsible.  Simple as that, really."

Irrelevant since kids don't know what sex is beforehand.

"No.  Schools should be privatized.  Private schools are far superior as well, and contribute to ending the chain of poverty by giving everyone a superior education."

(Hypothetically since I got myself sterilized.) You pay for my kids going to a expensive private school then.

"Education is a maybe - but we shouldn't neglect the *reason* that we implimented public education - to keep voters informed."

Then the onl subject in public schools would be History, Government and Economics. Massive fail.

"It isn't necessary."

Education isn't necessary? LOL.

"'Spiteful,' says the person who has, for the *second* time, in the *same post* told me to 'get the hell out'? LOL."

I broke down your post if you haven't noticed. LOLIGAGGLES.

"Ah, so its the 'faggots' fault, says she who calls *me* 'spiteful.'"

Yes. Faggots = Those whom want to cut contraceptives and sex-ed while making abortions more scarce. Contradicting bastards. You are spiteful.

"It is not the fault of said 'faggots' for opposing sex-ed."

They think that by keeping people in the dark, they won't do anything. That has been proven wrong many times.

"Actually, the fact that we live in this day and age makes it easier to learn about sex regardless of whether there is, or is not sexual education classes."

It doesn't go for everyone though. Not every one is the same person with the same resources.

"Due to this, as well as many of the advances in technology, and the rise in standard of living, and in public resources, sex-ed is not needed."

It still is in schools if they're not getting what they need to know at home. The stork and cabbage patch stories don't suffice.

"No, last I checked I live in the real world.  By the time they are able to have sex, by the way, they are not children, they will be adolescents, or 'young adults.', whichever you prefer."

That doesn't count for 11-13 year olds. Children these days have been getting into sex at an earlier and earlier age.

"That's not true.  I'm a very compassionate person."

You just wanted parents with diabetes or a similiar health disorder to drop dead instead of raising a family. That's really not compassionate.

"LOL.  Should I list all the spiteful comments you have directed at me in this post? Don't make me laugh... please... hahaha."

I'm not the one telling people with health problems like diabates not to raise a family, now am I? (I guess that can be called selected reproduction. Very fascist.) Also, I'm not the one ditching people who have already established themselves in society (men, women, children) in favor of fetuses. You take offense that I called you spiteful? You really are.

"I have a legitimate opinion regarding politics, and this topic specifically."

Flawed/contradicting opinions don't count.

>>410

Crowd goes wild. *whooosh..ahhhhh*

"(Hypothetically since I got myself sterilized.) You pay for my kids going to a expensive private school then." Actually, private schools aren't faring better than public schools at the moment.

>>412
I can back that up.

http://www.alternet.org/story/40918/

"And while most people assume that private schools are generally of higher quality than public schools, a recent study shows better scores, controlling for economic background, among public school students."

Spoiler: "A recent study" shows whatever the fuck you want.

>>414 "Spoiler: "A recent study" shows whatever the fuck you want." Well, another recent study shows that NO U!
http://gsrcivic96.tripod.com/images/Black%20widow%20spoiler.jpg 

>>410
"Completely disagree with that. If libertarianism means that parents can teach their children whatever, I am not a complete libertarian."

There's nothing wrong with parents teaching things to their children.  This is natural..

"Public education and national healthcare are not necessarily evil (the worst word in existance, just in case)."

Public education and national health care are completely different.  Public education *might* be necessary for the continuation of our society, keeping voters informed.  National health care is not, and neither is institutionalized sex-ed.  While I'm not *certain* private education would work, I think it is certainly something to look into.

"The thing is that we would like to take some of your money, not because we believe that it is right but because it would pain you."

..?

"That could just as well be the exception that confirms the rule. Common sense is nothing compared to positivism."

There's nothing special about me, really.  I'm just an average guy.  If I could do it, and handle myself, there's no reason not to expect the same of all the other 'average guys' out there.  Unless, of course, you can give me a valid reason.

"Keyword is could. A lack of impossibility doesn't cause certainty."

Yes, but it means they were perfectly able to, with no serious impediments to their doing so, as was the case with me.  I turned out fine, as can they.  The point would be is that this is something they are able to take care of themselves, and that the government should thus back off. 

"As government expands, liberty contracts." -Ronald Reagan

We should avoid any degree of government that is not necessary for the preservation of a free society.  I would rather have my liberty than have 'certainty.' Sex-ed is not necessary for the preservation of a free society, and like all other government programs, detracts from liberty.

"And your analogy is still sub-par, as is many parts of your country. Worry about them."

Have you ever been to the USA? I kindof doubt it from what you say.  Its pretty fucking great here, and is not *near* as bad as all the euro-socialists seem to think/say it is.


>>411
"No it isn't.  Just hold people accountable, and punish irresponsibility, while rewarding responsibility.  This will encourage people to be more responsible.  Simple as that, really."

"Irrelevant since kids don't know what sex is beforehand."

They are able to know.  Also, you shouldn't call them 'kids.'  If anything, by the time they will be having sex, they will be 'adolescents' or 'young adults' at the very least.

"You pay for my kids going to a expensive private school then."

Get a job and pay for it yourself.

"Then the onl subject in public schools would be History, Government and Economics. Massive fail."

Not really.  Most of the subjects that are being taught right now have some form of use to voters.  Do you really think that there is no use for math in being an educated voter? At the very least, you should know the basic math skills.  Of course, english/language arts could be quite useful as well.  If you think about it, most of the main four subjects play some sort of role at some point or other in the cause of keeping voters more or less educated.  The system we have now minus sex-ed would work fine. 

"Education isn't necessary? LOL."

I never said 'education' in general was not necessary.  I said 'sex-ed' was not necessary.  Is your comprehension really that bad that you couldn't pick this up?

"Yes. Faggots = Those whom want to cut contraceptives and sex-ed while making abortions more scarce. Contradicting bastards. You are spiteful."

'Cut' contraceptives? I don't want government programs to dish them out, but I think people should be free to use whatever ones they wish.  I'm pro-liberty.  Sex-ed is incompatible with liberty.  I also think its pretty funny that *you* would call *me* spiteful, as well.  See >>407, hahahaaha.

"They think that by keeping people in the dark, they won't do anything. That has been proven wrong many times."

I'm not quite sure what you mean.  Not having sex-ed does not mean sexual education and educational material will not exist, it just means that the responsibility is being passed to the individual.

"Actually, the fact that we live in this day and age makes it easier to learn about sex regardless of whether there is, or is not sexual education classes."

"It doesn't go for everyone though. Not every one is the same person with the same resources."

Nearly everyone has access to public libraries, or private bookstores.  Both of these let you read practically as much as you like, for free.  Libraries also frequently have computers with internet access, also free.  These resources are all one needs, really, and as said before - nearly everyone in the country has access to them.  The other resource, of course, is the parents.  Not having institutionalized sex-ed does not mean that sexual education will not exist - it only means that the responsibility will and must be picked up by each person individually. 

"Due to this, as well as many of the advances in technology, and the rise in standard of living, and in public resources, sex-ed is not needed."

"It still is in schools if they're not getting what they need to know at home. The stork and cabbage patch stories don't suffice."

Schools have libraries in them - free to access for the kids, which have computers, and all sorts of books, and encyclopedias in them, again, free to access and use by said kids.  Most children have plenty of books, and at least one computer at home, and the number of people with access to the internet is rising very quickly.  On top of it all, there are always parents, teachers, other people at schools, mentors, public libraries, and private bookstores, both of which typically have free internet access, and all the books you could ever want, practically.  Nearly every child in the country has access to these things.  You also fail to point out one of the biggest contributors to why I educated myself on this topic - and why others can, and likely would do the same.  When it comes to sex, young adults and adolescents are generally interested.  It is natural.

"That doesn't count for 11-13 year olds. Children these days have been getting into sex at an earlier and earlier age."

That's such a slim margin of of people, it really isn't worth consideration.  Furthermore, 13 yr olds are still teenagers, adolescents at least, not 'kids.'  Your terminology is wrong.  Childhood technically ends at the onset of puberty.  By the time your average kid has his hormones going, and is wanting sex, he is obviously no longer a 'kid' anymore.

"That's not true.  I'm a very compassionate person."

"You just wanted parents with diabetes or a similiar health disorder to drop dead instead of raising a family. That's really not compassionate."

Oh? Show me where I said I wanted them to 'drop dead.'  I have nothing against people with health disorders - I have no idea where you are getting this garbage. 

"That's really not compassionate"

Neither having sex in an attempt to have a child regardless of the fact that you have a serious health disorder - giving no regard to the fact that you are then going to be having a baby that may not only take on the same disorder himself, but may *also* be put at risk for being aborted even late in term, if these health complications get in the way of having the baby as usual.  This activity which you call 'brave' is not only not 'compassionate,' it is irresponsible.

"LOL.  Should I list all the spiteful comments you have directed at me in this post? Don't make me laugh... please... hahaha."

"I'm not the one telling people with health problems like diabates not to raise a family, now am I?"

Show me where I said people with health problems should not raise a family.  I challenge you to find just a single instance. 

"(I guess that can be called selected reproduction. Very fascist.)"

It would be - if I was advocating laws and government enforcing said policy.  I'm not, and it is thus not fascist.  I simply have low regard for people who are irresponsible and are not compassionate, generally.   

"Also, I'm not the one ditching people who have already established themselves in society (men, women, children) in favor of fetuses."

I'm not 'ditching' anyone, and so you *say* you see eye to eye with me on abortion, so logically, wouldn't you be 'ditching them' as well? Now you are going to say 'well obviously not.'  That's where I say:  'well I'm not either'.  We see eye to eye on abortion, by your words yourself, as you said yourself.

"You take offense that I called you spiteful? You really are."

I don't take offense, I just think that spiteful people calling other people 'spiteful' while they are busy being 'spiteful' themselves in the very same posting are quite hilarious.

"Flawed/contradicting opinions don't count."

Says the libertarian who advocates government run sex-ed? At least I am consistent.

>>406
"Also, it is the government's job to provide social services, such as education, is it not?"

Nope, it is not.  It is the job of private citizens to take care of themselves.  The proper functions of government are to defend life, liberty, and property, not to provide social services, unless said social services are necessary for the preservation of our right to life, liberty, and property. 

The government's job is to keep fascist/communist governments from imposing their will on you, such as imposing restrictions on what drugs, guns, or personal freedoms you can enjoy, or telling you what to do with your own hard earned money (kinda like you seem to want to do).  Oh yeah, and our government also protects us and our rights from infringement by other individuals.  These are the proper functions of government.  Simply put, to protect our freedoms from infringement by both individuals, or other governments.  The rest is up to us.

The only exception I can think of to this, is possibly education.  As >>407 pointed out, it could be seen as an essential role of government to provide people with education, *so that they can make informed decisions at the polls.*  The reason this could be argued, is that it might be necessary for the preservation of our society and freedom.

The value of government contra the free market is not fixed. Canada's healthcare system is cheaper, easier, more reliable and enviable than that of America, while slightly over 50 % of America's personal bankruptcy filings are because of healthcare costs (and 75 % of said appliers actually had insurance). Meanwhile, drugs and medication costs (including those of the utilitarianly important preconception pills et al.) have risen steadily and substantially as of late. I believe that the extent of government control should not be based on philosophy (although I almost always believe mercantile forces to be superior) nor that a country can function if virtues are the only failsafes. I tend to consider myself the missing link between socialism and liberalism but as this makes me feel as a coward and an unneccesary perversion I thought it better to try to drag the American left towards its libertarian roots. I encourage Dean and dislike Clinton, I despise the Bushes, Carter and Nixon but approve of LBJ and Reagan to a degree.

"National health care is not, and neither is institutionalized sex-ed." I don't believe a government should or should not take care of healthcare. I think of Cuba and Canada, and then I remember that Sweden's healthcare sucks and that our socialists want to make private hospitals making profits illegal. I don't believe macropolitics and philosophy mixes well. If privatization is best, then the privatization of health-care should be handled a lot better than it has in the US thus far. I do not approve of the conservative's methods, which are to mishandle and fuck up systems until rapid, sweeping privatization is the only option. Asking a conservative to govern is like asking a vegetarian to whip up a decent boeuf bourgignon.
"There's nothing wrong with parents teaching things to their children.  This is natural.." Everybody get to have their own opinion. Nobody are allowed to have their own facts.
"There's nothing special about me, really.  I'm just an average guy.  If I could do it, and handle myself, there's no reason not to expect the same of all the other 'average guys' out there.  Unless, of course, you can give me a valid reason." A person is made up of unique experiences that occur in a unique order. The possibilities are endless. How can you prove your capacity to represent?
"Yes, but it means they were perfectly able to, with no serious impediments to their doing so, as was the case with me.  I turned out fine, as can they.  The point would be is that this is something they are able to take care of themselves, and that the government should thus back off." I believe a status quo should be applied to certain things despite my prefernce for mercantilism over government. Sex-ed is one.
"We should avoid any degree of government that is not necessary for the preservation of a free society.  I would rather have my liberty than have 'certainty.' Sex-ed is not necessary for the preservation of a free society, and like all other government programs, detracts from liberty." Won't deny it is hampering liberty. But if privatization of this is better it should be done incrementally but steadily.
"Have you ever been to the USA? I kindof doubt it from what you say.  Its pretty fucking great here, and is not *near* as bad as all the euro-socialists seem to think/say it is." America rocks. It's fundaments are creaking and there are a lot of things that can accumulate before you know it.
"'Cut' contraceptives? I don't want government programs to dish them out, but I think people should be free to use whatever ones they wish.  I'm pro-liberty.  Sex-ed is incompatible with liberty." Conservatives do this because since Reagan the American right is hijacked by christianists and neo-jacobins (I would be more right than left rather than v.v. if it wasn't for these people) and a vote for them is a vote for everything they do. There is approval or there is disapproval.
"Not having sex-ed does not mean sexual education and educational material will not exist, it just means that the responsibility is being passed to the individual." Well, abstinence-only education is just that. It ain't doing well.
The natural preference for sexual material can be good and bad depending on the material. Just because you happened to educate yourself doesn't mean that it will do so for others to a satisfying degree.
"I'm not 'ditching' anyone, and so you *say* you see eye to eye with me on abortion, so logically, wouldn't you be 'ditching them' as well? Now you are going to say 'well obviously not.'  That's where I say:  'well I'm not either'.  We see eye to eye on abortion, by your words yourself, as you said yourself." American society is ditching mothers, you just want to force them into motherhood.
"Says the libertarian who advocates government run sex-ed? At least I am consistent." Aren't you the paleo-libertarian that approved of the Crusade on drugs? If not, my bad.

"There's nothing wrong with parents teaching things to their children.  This is natural.." - The stork and cabbage patch stories don't count.
"Public education and national health care are completely different.  Public education *might* be necessary for the continuation of our society, keeping voters informed." - Public education is necessary in all aspects, also, public education gives one a more well-rounded education than the education one receives at private schools.
"National health care is not, and neither is institutionalized sex-ed." - National health care is greater than private health care. Sex-ed helps people make informed decisions.
http://www.alternet.org/story/40951/
Canada > US @ health care.
"Sex-ed is not necessary for the preservation of a free society, and like all other government programs, detracts from liberty." - If you want the number the abortions to decline, then sex-ed is a must for people may have the power of informed decisions. If you give people education and power, the less likely they'll be to screw up. The government should stay out of abortion cases then too, since it detracts from liberty. Any doctor knows more about health care than some politician.
"Have you ever been to the USA? I kindof doubt it from what you say.  Its pretty fucking great here, and is not *near* as bad as all the euro-socialists seem to think/say it is." - It's really not that all 'fucking' great here, I feel ashamed to call myself an American from the Bush Administration.
"They are able to know.  Also, you shouldn't call them 'kids.'  If anything, by the time they will be having sex, they will be 'adolescents' or 'young adults' at the very least." - Hello! Kids do have sex in this day and age, it's not like what it was before.
""You pay for my kids going to a expensive private school then."
Get a job and pay for it yourself." - You're the one whom wanted my kids to the private school, so you should pay for it. Then again..private schools really aren't fairing better than public schools.. Also, I do have a job ya dummy.
""Education isn't necessary? LOL."
"I never said 'education' in general was not necessary.  I said 'sex-ed' was not necessary.  Is your comprehension really that bad that you couldn't pick this up?" - With your twisted ways, I could safely assume that is what you wanted. You keep talking about voters like that's all the good people are for, nothing else.
"Sex-ed is incompatible with liberty." - You must really think it's that really big of a 'bad' deal. Sex-ed isn't hard to make in public schools.
"it just means that the responsibility is being passed to the individual." - And the individual woundn't know about that responsibility unless s/he was told about it.
"That's such a slim margin of of people, it really isn't worth consideration.  Furthermore, 13 yr olds are still teenagers, adolescents at least, not 'kids.'  Your terminology is wrong.  Childhood technically ends at the onset of puberty.  By the time your average kid has his hormones going, and is wanting sex, he is obviously no longer a 'kid' anymore." - Kids' hormones have been firing up at a younger and younger age, even before 13. I know it because I see it, witness it, and hear about in my area.
"Neither having sex in an attempt to have a child regardless of the fact that you have a serious health disorder - giving no regard to the fact that you are then going to be having a baby that may not only take on the same disorder himself, but may *also* be put at risk for being aborted even late in term, if these health complications get in the way of having the baby as usual." - There's a 1/4 or 1/2 chance that the child will pick up the same disorder. Also, most complications can be avoided with better access and more affordability to pre-natal and neo-natal care. Also, you only seem to care about the wittle little baby, what about the parents with the disorder? Don't they get any sympathy?
"This activity which you call 'brave' is not only not 'compassionate,' it is irresponsible." - I don't find it irresponsible since I'm all for the parents and their willingness to defy the odds to raise a happy family.
"Show me where I said people with health problems should not raise a family.  I challenge you to find just a single instance." - It's all over the thread, hell, just even in this post. Saying it's 'irresponsible' and showing no compassion to the parents.
"It would be - if I was advocating laws and government enforcing said policy.  I'm not, and it is thus not fascist.  I simply have low regard for people who are irresponsible and are not compassionate, generally." - I Lol'd.
"I'm not 'ditching' anyone, and so you *say* you see eye to eye with me on abortion, so logically, wouldn't you be 'ditching them' as well? Now you are going to say 'well obviously not.'  That's where I say:  'well I'm not either'.  We see eye to eye on abortion, by your words yourself, as you said yourself."- I'm ditching no one, as we have different placed priorities. I put priority of the parents over the fetus. You put priority in favor the fetus over the parents. However, that doesn't mean our view on abortion is different. As Xel said, America is ditching mothers and forcing them into motherhood, that's a breach of their liberty and their right-to-life. And another thing, mothers are becoming a play toy to the government and are still discriminated against.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/070606WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/070706WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/073106WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080206WA.shtml
"or telling you what to do with your own hard earned money (kinda like you seem to want to do)." - I Lol'd again.

You all about 'irresponsible' people and holding them accountable for their actions. But do you know what causes irresponsible people?

"also, public education gives one a more well-rounded education than the education one receives at private schools." Not neccesarily. Also, I think a mixed bag of private/public schools is a good idea, here in Sweden the syllabi are shit, teachers are undereducated and underfunding is rife - but parents are largely stuck. The syllabi of private schools must always apply to a national bottom line of objectivity, truth, tolerance and positivism however.
"National health care is greater than private health care." Us Swedes would like to disagree somewhat.
"If you give people education and power, the less likely they'll be to screw up." But there be internet and there be libraries! The very idea that fundamentalist parents/the oversexualized media/social preconceptions would *really* be the teacher for teenagers is just leftist!
"And the individual woundn't know about that responsibility unless s/he was told about it." One of the tenets of libertarianism I have problems with is that it depends on virtues and the school of hard knocks. I'm lukewarm to the concept.
"You all about 'irresponsible' people and holding them accountable for their actions. But do you know what causes irresponsible people?" My biggest gripe with libertarianism is that it ignores the unquestionable power of environmental determinism, which incidentally is the biggest justifying factor for more than a skeletal government.

""National health care is greater than private health care." Us Swedes would like to disagree somewhat." - I suppose it's different for every country then.
"But there be internet and there be libraries! The very idea that fundamentalist parents/the oversexualized media/social preconceptions would *really* be the teacher for teenagers is just leftist!" - Schooling ftw.
"My biggest gripe with libertarianism is that it ignores the unquestionable power of environmental determinism, which incidentally is the biggest justifying factor for more than a skeletal government." - I never took notice to that. If it does, then it'll need to be changed.

"Schooling ftw." Education for the win, preferably.
"If it does, then it'll need to be changed." Everything in moderation, although the American government is ridiculously large.

↑ ↓ ■
Elections, Election Fraud, and the Big Two (12)
1 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-28 01:53

    http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index.html
    http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,65665-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
    The irregularities in certain communities in rural Florida that many democrats speak of are hyped up to say the least.  These said irregularities are easilly explained away by looking at past voter trends.. see article.

    Election Fraud Links:
    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/darr/050428

    http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=4973

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784032/posts

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/008268.php

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a116f026574.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0fa45726e0.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a14d60f7720.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1223508/posts

    (Post truncated.)

The 5 newest replies are shown below.
Read this thread from the beginning
8 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-28 22:10

    >>6 win lol

9 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-28 22:20

    >>7 exactly, you aren't going to change the democrats by voting for them.  making a protest vote for a different party the next election is the way to go.  I recommend the libertarian party.

10 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-28 22:51

    >>9 WITH FIRE

11 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-29 00:49

    lmao dumb liberals

12 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-29 03:07

    >>11

    DIE DIE DIE ALL OF YOU MUST DIE

Name:         Email:        
13    
    Entire Thread Last 50 Posts First 100 Posts
↑ ↓ ■
Your Taxes Subsidize Socialist China (37)
1 Name: Anonymous @ 2006-08-22 02:53

    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst081406.htm

>>423
Education for the win, yes.
The two party system never really worked here anyways..

>>424 Do you belong here? Did your friends at freeper kick you out?

"- I don't find it irresponsible since I'm all for the parents and their willingness to defy the odds to raise a happy family."

What you call 'defying the odds' entails putting their children at risk thanks to their decisions.  You call it brave, I call it irresponsible and not-very- compassionate.  People who do this are assholes in my opinion.

"- It's all over the thread, hell, just even in this post. Saying it's 'irresponsible' and showing no compassion to the parents."

HA!  You didn't point out an instance.  I'll clue you in:  there isn't one.  Nowhere in this thread did I say that the aforementioned parents should not raise families.  I said becoming pregnant would be irresponsible in their situation.  I did not say they could not raise families. 

I guess you didn't even *consider* the possibility that they could adopt.  You'd rather they played games and gambled with their children's future health and life, right?

"- I Lol'd."

I lol'd at the fact that this is the only response you could give me.

"- I'm ditching no one, as we have different placed priorities. I put priority of the parents over the fetus. You put priority in favor the fetus over the parents. However, that doesn't mean our view on abortion is different."

You have yet to explain to me how I am 'ditching' people.  Furthermore, since our positions are the same, according to you, you have yet to explain how you wouldn't then be ditching people as well.

And also, I don't prioritize fetuses.  This is more unsubstantiated leftist garbage.

"As Xel said, America is ditching mothers and forcing them into motherhood, that's a breach of their liberty and their right-to-life."

America isn't 'ditching' mothers, that's leftist bullshit.  Tell me specifically how we are 'ditching' mothers, and how this breaches their liberty and right to life.  Furthermore, explain to me how AMERICA is at fault for 'forcing' mothers into motherhood.

"And another thing, mothers are becoming a play toy to the government and are still discriminated against.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/070606WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/070706WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/073106WA.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080206WA.shtml";

Employers have the right to discriminate if they want.  It is their property, and their right to use it or give it away how they please.  Employment and hiring are and should continue to be entirely voluntary activities. 

"- I Lol'd again."

I lol'd again at the fact that once again you have dodged my comment and failed to offer a reasonable retort of any kind.

"You all about 'irresponsible' people and holding them accountable for their actions. But do you know what causes irresponsible people?"

People make irresponsible decisions.  This makes them 'irresponsible people.' 



>>423
"Everything in moderation, although the American government is ridiculously large."

And you say you aren't a moderate? LOL.  I agree with one thing though, the government is getting ridiculously large.  We need downsizing asap.


>>421
"Not neccesarily. Also, I think a mixed bag of private/public schools is a good idea, here in Sweden the syllabi are shit, teachers are undereducated and underfunding is rife - but parents are largely stuck."

I think that is a good idea for the time being.

"Us Swedes would like to disagree somewhat."

I agree with you.

"But there be internet and there be libraries! The very idea that fundamentalist parents/the oversexualized media/social preconceptions would *really* be the teacher for teenagers is just leftist!"

Talking about environmental determinism again? There are alternative forms of media, encyclopedias, books, libraries, and computers readilly availible, and we have existed for long, long periods of time without sex-ed.  It is *far* from a must.  I think free will is real, and individuals are responsible to take care of themselves.

"My biggest gripe with libertarianism is that it ignores the unquestionable power of environmental determinism, which incidentally is the biggest justifying factor for more than a skeletal government."

If it were real, yes.  I believe in free will though, not environmental determinism.  The logical conclusion to the fact that I believe in free-will is that we should have limmited government, liberty, and capitalism much like I have suggested in the past.

"What you call 'defying the odds' entails putting their children at risk thanks to their decisions.  You call it brave, I call it irresponsible and not-very- compassionate.  People who do this are assholes in my opinion." - It's still all in good conscience. A health problem shouldn't deter a couple from raising a family.
"HA!  You didn't point out an instance.  I'll clue you in:  there isn't one.  Nowhere in this thread did I say that the aforementioned parents should not raise families.  I said becoming pregnant would be irresponsible in their situation.  I did not say they could not raise families. 

I guess you didn't even *consider* the possibility that they could adopt.  You'd rather they played games and gambled with their children's future health and life, right?" - "You call it brave, I call it irresponsible and not-very- compassionate.  People who do this are assholes in my opinion." That screams that you don't want them to raise a family, as has all the related jibba jabba you mentioned about it.
"Employers have the right to discriminate if they want.  It is their property, and their right to use it or give it away how they please.  Employment and hiring are and should continue to be entirely voluntary activities." - There are laws against discrimination in the workplace enacted by both state level and by the company making up its own rules. They just rarely or if ever follow them.
""You all about 'irresponsible' people and holding them accountable for their actions. But do you know what causes irresponsible people?"

People make irresponsible decisions.  This makes them 'irresponsible people.'" - No no no. What causes them to be irresponsible in the first place? What causes them to make said irresponsible decisions?

>>428
"- It's still all in good conscience. A health problem shouldn't deter a couple from raising a family."

Again, I wouldn't say gambling with your children's lives and future is in 'good conscience.'  Rather, I'd say it is irresponsible.  People who do this are 'assholes' in my opinion, regardless of whether or not you think they are 'brave.'

They can also raise a family via adoption.  There are plenty of kids out there that are disease and risk free who need homes.  This is the compassionate solution that fixes both problems.  It gives an unwanted uncared for child a home and a place to be nurtured, and gives the parents a loving child to raise. 

"That screams that you don't want them to raise a family, as has all the related jibba jabba you mentioned about it."

No it doesn't.  I would very much prefer they didn't have children naturally, because this is essentially gambling with their children's lives, health, and future.  You know, the activity of a general 'asshole.'  A good person who wanted kids in this situation would adopt them.  There are plenty of needy kids out there who deserve a home, and would be thankful for having been taken in.  This is the compassionate solution that fixes both problems - the parents want for children to raise, and the needy children's want for a loving home.

"- There are laws against discrimination in the workplace enacted by both state level and by the company making up its own rules. They just rarely or if ever follow them."

Good.  They are inconsistent with liberty, and I salute them for not following them.  Remember how all those good ol' americans drank on principle during the prohibition period because they should have the personal freedom to drink or not, and the government shouldn't have any say? Yeah.  My hat is off to those employers on the principle that they are rebelling against unjust anti-liberty laws, even if I disagree with discrimination personally.

"- No no no. What causes them to be irresponsible in the first place?"

Their decision to take irresponsible actions.

"What causes them to make said irresponsible decisions?"

Their choice. 


They have a choice to be irresponsible or not, to be kind or not, etc. 

First, free will is a complete illusion. Humans do things to ir environment, the environment responds, humans alter their behavior and it goes back and forth like that. Environmental determinism is a psychological and philosophical fact and it has a tendency to accumulate.
Second, a clear majority of the welfare takers are single mothers, not single fathers. 
Third, if a population has a cultural bias or slant that makes them prone to discrimination, then a little aribtrary protection of the discriminated group is in order. People want freedom to discriminate? Then they need to show they can handle that freedom first, quid pro quo. A society is not measured by how free the population is. It is measured by how much freedom the population can tolerate and handle.

>>430
"First, free will is a complete illusion."

I disagree, but if you want to talk about *that* why don't you make a new thread, so we don't clutter this one with discussion about free will.

>>431 still doesn't get it.

There's a whole plethora of philosophies and ideals that crop up when someone talks about banning abortion. If it's one thing he'd be smart to admit here and now- is that's not simply about responsiblity and that it. Sorry: No. It's much, much more complicated than that. And yes, very often these ideals take precedence over an unborn life. This is just like war, capitalism and everything else. He can either argue according to fact that there's a bigger picture or he can endlessly fail.

Choice.

>>432
If you want to argue that there is some sort of 'bigger picture' which you have so far been unable to prove, go make a thread for that, thx.

>>433

No. The bigger picture is apart of the argument and if you've been paying fucking attention (just kidding! I know you haven't)has be occuring naturally in the course of the discussion. You're just doing what you always have done: Dodging the issues and trying to argue in bullet points.

The point: You can't argue abortion in "bullet points".

>>433
fail. why should we make another abortion thread? that's already been done, remember? you just dodged the less obvious of issues there as well. but, by all means you bi-polar shithead...continue with yur "lib-talk". it's totally stupid and totally gay. no one believes in the left-right meme anymore. so keep crying about these mystical liberals, it's funny. it really is.

faggot

>>434 Yes you can, if your bullet point is a universalizable maxim that humanity would benefit from applying to. Pro-life is not such a point. The reason abortions don't cause the same problems and suffering as murder is because the human psyche doesn't and shouldn't view it as equal to murder. Morally, ethically, esthetically, sociologically, psychologically, philosophically and utilitarianly it just isn't as bad as actual murder, hence it is allowed and will be as long as civilization perseveres.
>>433 Poor swerve. This is part of the issue and you are trying to make the situation as simplistic as your understanding of it.

>>435 Liberals are okay except they don't want people to be independent from government handouts and are against guns. My desire is to draw democrats towards a libertarian stance, in which the people's allowance is slowly but surely diminished while a cultural reparadigm prepares them for their new freedoms and responsibilities. I can't trust the right on this. "faggot" Crude, dude. Don't use that word as a derogative or a negative association. Leave that to people in the army and in Alabama.

If 'environmental determinism' is real, then why have people that live in certain situations grown up to become different people?

Obviously, there is plenty of room for free will.  People are not subject to outside forces -entirely-, at the very least. 

Environmental determinists fail to offer any kind of explanation to these questions.

>>435
"fail. why should we make another abortion thread?"

I'm not saying 'make another abortion thread', you stupid fuck. 

"you just dodged the less obvious of issues there as well. but, by all means you bi-polar shithead...continue with yur "lib-talk". it's totally stupid and totally gay."

Environmental determinism leaves many things unanswered, and is *far* from proven.  Until you have a *fact* that I need to answer to, I don't need to answer to it.

"no one believes in the left-right meme anymore. so keep crying about these mystical liberals, it's funny. it really is."

I'm not saying it is as simple as left-right. 

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU GUYS, LAY OFF THE RITALIN BEFORE YOU DIE OF BEING BORING PIECES OF SHIT