Question 4

[amicus]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

With your attempt of control over their freedom of thought and expression (on an Internet chat board no less ), I guess there should be three gibbets in that there public square. Right?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

On the other hand Ami would also regulate your reproductive rights by not allowing you the choice to carry to term or not. Just goes to show how lopsided his thinking is.

 

[Shwenn]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

You only have rights in as much as your expression of those rights in no way intereferes with another person's rights. This is what most of our law, enacted by use of force, is based on.

The pro-lifers believe the unborn child is a person with rights. They are not violating the basic morality by which we all live.

We only disagree on whether the fetus is a person. That is where the disagreement is. That is where I disagree with them.

Let's keep the histrionics to a comfy potential minimum. They aren't Hilters. They just have a different idea of when life begins.

 

[amicus]

Shwenn...I have been debating this issue since the 1970's many years as a host on talk radio and television and I regret to inform you that human life and the protection of it, is not a 'belief' or an 'idea' or an opinion that one can have or not have, it is a medical and scientific fact of life.

Human life begins at the instant of conception. Period. No if's and's or's nor's or but's, thas a fact, Jack.

Like it or not, the basic right to life supersedes women's reproductive rights, convenience, even rape and incest. In the hierarchy of values, human life is the foundation and cannot be violated if one is to claim a moral and ethical existence.

Simple, ain't it?



Ami

 

[Shwenn]

Like it or not, the basic right to life supersedes women's reproductive rights, convenience, even rape and incest. In the hierarchy of values, human life is the foundation and cannot be violated if one is to claim a moral and ethical existence.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

That was a beautiful thing I just did there. I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates it.

 

[amicus]

No, not beautiful, just a snippy, bitchy little thing because you cannot confront my position; I expected better of you.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

Without reading the other posts, my answer is: one more than you can afford to support!

What she said. And I might add (also without reading any other post): Not only financially.

 

[Munachi]

That was a beautiful thing I just did there. I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates it.

it would have been nice without that text, but i suppose lit doesn't allow you to post just quotes, without a text of your own.

 

[Liar]

Simple, ain't it?

Indeed.

True? That's another question. One that we have haggled ad nauseum and that haven't lead to any change in either's conviction. So let's leave it at that.

 

[Shwenn]

No, not beautiful, just a snippy, bitchy little thing because you cannot confront my position; I expected better of you.

Amicus...

You confronted your own position.

You claim individual rights outweigh human life. Then you claim human life outweighs individual rights.

Which is it?

 

[rgraham666]

You confronted your own position.

You claim individual rights outweigh human life. Then you claim human life outweighs individual rights.

Which is it?

Whichever one he wants it to be. Like Humpty Dumpty when our 'friend' uses a word or phrase it means no more and no less than he means it to.

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

I propose capping tax deductions for dependents at two per couple, unless the kids are adopted.

For those interested in the survival of the human species, this would be a sensible policy. For those who are unaware of the repercussions of their actions, I'm sure a proposal like this would have them up in arms. That would actually be a good thing, because if they were up in arms, getting themselves shot would only help to control the population problem.
<snip>

And what about those women who give birth to multiples (ie, twins) that occur naturally (NO drugs) and it puts them over their limit of two? Then you are punishing the women and their families for something they had absolutely no control over. Not very fair, IMHO.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Shwenn;28473778]You confronted your own position.

You claim individual rights outweigh human life. Then you claim human life outweighs individual rights.

Which is it?[/QUOTE]

~~~

The contradiction is in your mind, not in my writing, although the drawn and quartered was a bit flamboyent, I do like to tickle the reader now and then.

Of course a woman has reproductive rights, to choose when she shares her body and risks a pregnancy. However, the fundamental right to life, upon which all other rights are based, supersedes the secondary right of choosing and we, as a society, used to act to protect human life, even in the womb.

We still do, in some aspects, as example when a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator is charged with two counts of murder.

Go figure that one?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Shwenn;28473778]You confronted your own position.

You claim individual rights outweigh human life. Then you claim human life outweighs individual rights.

Which is it?[/QUOTE]

~~~

The contradiction is in your mind, not in my writing, although the drawn and quartered was a bit flamboyent, I do like to tickle the reader now and then.

Of course a woman has reproductive rights, to choose when she shares her body and risks a pregnancy. However, the fundamental right to life, upon which all other rights are based, supersedes the secondary right of choosing and we, as a society, used to act to protect human life, even in the womb.

We still do, in some aspects, as example when a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator is charged with two counts of murder.

Go figure that one?

But if you want to join the herd, avoid the discussion and state your belief's fine, at least you were offered a rational reply.

Amicus...

 

[Munachi]

actually this is an interesting contrast to some discussions here in germany right now where some politicians actually want to give families with more than two children more tax cuts and support. in part, to prevent these families from poverty, but again, in part because they see it as a problem that on average people here have less and less children.

 

[michchick98]

the other point of course would be, do we need children? i guess if you are of the opinion we should voluntarily die out, then you have right to complain that your money supports children of which you wish that they wouldn't even exist... though they're still not other people's property. anyway, sorry for ranting...

anyway, for those against children per se - not sure if this link has been posted yet (i might actually have it from here) but maybe you find this interesting... personally i don't agree with it (also because i do want children), but still found it interesting in a somewhat bizarre way: http://www.vhemt.org/

If there's a single woman already living off the government and struggling to get by, wouldn't you think it would be smart to get on some sort of birth control? At least until she can manage her own life and finances without relying on the government.

I'm not saying these children aren't wanted, but if it's MY choice to not have children, why should my hard earned money go to support someone else's child? That'd be like buying groceries every week and putting them in your neighbors refrigerator and them not letting you have anything.

Oh sure, my tax dollars go to other things as well, but where do you think the states and the federal government get the money to pay welfare?

Now, if the woman meets a man, gets married and makes a life with him, even if he's supporting her, she can easily manage to get herself off welfare and make a better life for her and her child(ren).

I had a go around quite a few years ago with a woman at the last job I worked at. She was told by the state of Michigan that she had to get out and get a job because her welfare was being reduced.

She had six kids and no husband. Five of those six kids were fathered by different men, none of whom paid child support.

Due to differences with our boss, she was fired, but not before she made a very public statement that she'd find a way to (and I quote) "stay on welfare and make all y'all's sorry asses pay for me to pop babies out every nine months!"

THAT'S why I said it becomes our business when OUR tax dollars go to support these children.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

No, Ami, they are not advocating control of MY reproductive rights, nor of yours. In fact, they are not advocating the control of anybody's reproductive rights. They are saying that people should be required to take care of their children, and I am surprised that you find fault in that, because that has always been your position up until now. I would be inclined to agree with them, except it might be too slippery a slope.

You, on the other hand, have always advocated controlling the reproductive rights of all women by outlawing abortions.

BTW I am also rsther surprised to read of your advocating such a violent suppression of somebody's constitutional rights to freely express an opinion.

ETA: BTW, that's "hanged and quartered."

 

[Munachi]

i am not sure in what relation what you said stands to the part of my post that you quoted - it seems to refer exactly to the other half of my post.

well, of course i see it as problematic when poor people have one child after the other, as these children then often grow up in difficult conditions. but i'd say the best way to stop that would be to offer them alternatives - someone with no education and thus only boring jobs, and at the same time a background where it is seen as the "thing to do" for a woman to have many kids, might think that this is her life's fulfillment. i don't think it's that they don't know how birth control works... and i definitely don't think you can or should force people to use birth control.

as for your tax dollars - if you are old and sick and unable to work, isn't it then in a way those children, that support you? sure, you pay insurance now so you could say it's what you pay now that ensures you life in such a case - but in the end, isn't it still the people that are paying into the insurance then (i.e. those that are kids now) that ensure that you actually get your money then? i am no expert on these things, much less on how they work in other countries, but that was how i thought it works... so even if you decide not to have kids, the existence of kids is of a certain importance for you.

as for the woman you mention - i suppose it isn't easy to find a man to marry you if you already have six children. i agree it is not smart of her to have that many children, but maybe she just isn't that smart, and believed each of those guys that they will stay with her forever, and will take care of her and the kid they make with her. i do agree that her statement there was stupid and annoying - the thing is though, it's not the children's fault. and your taxes support the children mainly. i do agree that she should get a job (if the children are old enough to be left alone) but if she doesn't, the children shouldn't get punished...

 

[Munachi]

as i said, this doesn't mean i don't agree that a lot of people are having kids that shouldn't have them, or shouldn't have as many - after all, being poor, and having parents that never have time for them because you are too many, can be tough on the kids too (though it depends on the parents' ability to manage this). i just don't like people whining about their tax dollars, since taxes tend to go to all kinds of things one doesn't agree with (a pacifists taxes still go to support the army, don't they?) and supporting children doesn't seem the worst use of taxes to me.

 

[amicus]

No, Box, he was well hung....

You just don't see the tree in the forest and you forget, the forest is made up of individual trees, all of which make a sound when they fall.

You want there to be a contradiction in my assertions concerning the primacy of human life, but there is none. The argument is perfectly consistent and congruent with women's reproductive rights, It does however forbid her or anyone from taking a human life without cause, for any reason except saving the life of the mother where both are in jeopardy.

You desperately want their to be a contradiction in my thinking, in my argument, for if there is not, your moral position is intellectually untenable and you know it.

I find it ludicrous that some here, with fine minds and great accuity will simply not acknowledge that you cannot take the life of a human being as a birth control method, a means of ridding oneself of an unwanted pregnancy or for the mere sake of convenience.

And it is not, as some sophisticates claim, 'a lump of cell matter'. It contains the complete genes and chromosomes carried by both parents and will, if nutured, indeed become, a living person.

You and a whole generation of non thinkers have evaded and avoided this question far too long. Time to face the failure of your premises.

Amicus...

 

[DeeZire]

And what about those women who give birth to multiples (ie, twins) that occur naturally (NO drugs) and it puts them over their limit of two? Then you are punishing the women and their families for something they had absolutely no control over. Not very fair, IMHO.

Good point. If I wrote the law, an exception would be made for this scenario.

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

For Ami's benefit, a tax policy like this would be an incentive, not a directive on human behavior. (Again, comprehension of basic concepts seems to be lacking in Ami's world. I wonder if it's a problem with extreme paranoia, or just a reading comprehension issue? Or perhaps Ami is posting from the loony bin? That would be my conclusion.)

If we were to raise awareness about the overpopulation issue, through tax incentives, education, scientific deconstruction of religious dogma, and government assistance limits, it's entirely possible that, eventually, social pressure would create a decrease in the exponential growth we're seeing right now, making tax incentives unnecessary.

The situation in Germany is puzzling to me, perhaps indicating a desire to solve economic problems with ecologically unsound solutions? But isn't that the basic foundation of economics and the free market? You suspend all reason for the sake of a profit, imperiling the survival of the human species in the process. Very astute thinking, eh?

 

[Munachi]

well one thing to keep in mind is that in the US i think on average every woman has slightly over two children, i.e. the population is growing, while in germany it's on average less than one and a half per woman (dunno how to phrase this better, i hope you get the idea)... of course i think letting in more immigrants would help with the problem without adding to the general overpopulation of the world... but i think the idea with helping families with a lot of children doesn't necessarily have to do with encouraging them to have children, but rather with helping the children that are there. and actually i don't think many people decide for a third child because they might get 100 euros more per month - because raising a child costs much more than that.

 

[Munachi]

and actually, i don't think "punishing" people financially for having more children will really stop many having more children.

 

[amicus]

Good point. If I wrote the law, an exception would be made for this scenario.



For Ami's benefit, a tax policy like this would be an incentive, not a directive on human behavior. (Again, comprehension of basic concepts seems to be lacking in Ami's world. I wonder if it's a problem with extreme paranoia, or just a reading comprehension issue? Or perhaps Ami is posting from the loony bin? That would be my conclusion.)

If we were to raise awareness about the overpopulation issue, through tax incentives, education, scientific deconstruction of religious dogma, and government assistance limits, it's entirely possible that, eventually, social pressure would create a decrease in the exponential growth we're seeing right now, making tax incentives unnecessary.

The situation in Germany is puzzling to me, perhaps indicating a desire to solve economic problems with ecologically unsound solutions? But isn't that the basic foundation of economics and the free market? You suspend all reason for the sake of a profit, imperiling the survival of the human species in the process. Very astute thinking, eh?

~~~

A pity you can't make a point without getting nasty.

Your ignorance of fact is startling, guess I gotta be the one to inform you that all western industrialized nations are suffering a decline in natural population, there is no 'exponential' growth, your facts, well, are non existent.

The birth rate in America dropped below replacement values nearly a generation ago and for the white population is nearing 1.5 children per family.

Blacks and Hispanics and immigrants have kept the population growing slightly, as it has in England, France and most Euro Nations. Japan really has a problem as they limit those who come into the country and very tightly control their population. They find themselves unable to meet the social programs they have instituted as not enough young people are working and paying taxes.

If I take my foot off your neck, ya know, the one holding you down...that can hardly be considered an incentive.

To tax is to use force...try not paying it and see the barrel of a gun and prison bars.

All your fine rhetoric about 'social programs' to educate the dummies, requires force and you just don't want to admit it.

Typical head in sand left wing thinking.....

smiles...

have a nice day...


amicus...