>>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.