Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves: Pew

Avatar image for kittennose
#151 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Well yeah. I mean you pretend you don't support trump but slam the "liberals" here when they do and then you say you aren't supporting him. True enough some people don't see themselves as they are.

You never did explain what you mean by that discussions and agreements line.

Avatar image for theone86
#152 Posted by theone86 (21968 posts) -
@kittennose said:
@theone86 said:
@kittennose said:
@theone86 said:

Prove it. Do one thing to substantiate the ridiculous accusations you make against me.

It is on the first page you dink, right under the goof we who going off about the evils of planned parenthood.

Your revisionist nonsense is just tiring.

So you can't even be bothered to grab the quote yourself? You are a serious piece of work.

@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

Actually, studies show that white women are far more likely to vote for Trump if their spouses support Trump. It's not so much that the Democratic party"failed them" as they're just more swayed by their partners' views.

Just pointing out what kittennose is pointing out.

Then you're not pointing out anything because I don't see one thing I said there that substantiates his claim.

Lots of bigots don't see why they are bigots. I didn't expect you to have the self awareness to be an exception. You are like the racists who look at crime statistics and say "What do you mean poverty is a factor in not only crime but successful prosecution!? Madness, it has to be skin color."

Make an actual argument. Make a connection between your quote and your claim. Or just sit there and act like it should be completely obvious to everyone, your choice.

Avatar image for kittennose
#153 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@theone86 said:

Make an actual argument. Make a connection between your quote and your claim. Or just sit there and act like it should be completely obvious to everyone, your choice.

You looked at a statistic and came up with the most offensive and degrading interpretation of that statistic without considering the obvious and non-insulting alternatives. You know, like a bigot.

Avatar image for theone86
#154 Posted by theone86 (21968 posts) -
@kittennose said:
@theone86 said:

Make an actual argument. Make a connection between your quote and your claim. Or just sit there and act like it should be completely obvious to everyone, your choice.

You looked at a statistic and came up with the most offensive and degrading interpretation of that statistic without considering the obvious and non-insulting alternatives. You know, like a bigot.

And you're back to the name-calling. Back to your bridge, troll.

Avatar image for kittennose
#155 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@theone86 said:

And you're back to the name-calling. Back to your bridge, troll.

Go back to to your redpill, incel.

Avatar image for zaryia
#156 Posted by Zaryia (5396 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#157 Edited by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

See this is where I have serious, serious issues. Organizations like Planned Parenthood like to push the narrative that having an abortion is no big deal. Watch a late term abortion where the fetus, which is a baby at this point, is dismembered, then get back to me. Even if you don't acknowledge that it is a baby or a life, it is still a potential baby or life.

I find it ridiculous that women get the green light to kill life simply based on their convenience. Oh its inconvenient to have a baby, its ok I will just have an abortion. There is no justification for killing someone unless your own life is in jeopardy. No one has the right to kill anyone simply because of either inconvenience or the level of burden someone is. Example, if I am walking down the street and suddenly I encounter a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk who is blocking my path, I have no moral right to kill them.

Gotta love the brainwashed liberals who actually justify the killing of an unborn child, and they call conservatives radicals? Please.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#158 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164607 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

A fetus is in fact a baby but I get that it's easier to say it's not and have that disconnect.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#159 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:
@zaryia said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

A fetus is in fact a baby but I get that it's easier to say it's not and have that disconnect.

Saying that it isn't a baby is what gives them justification for abortion, but it isn't really all that justified is it? Regardless of what you call it, baby, fetus whatever, you are still killing a life. For once I think that we might actually agree one something...

Avatar image for drlostrib
#160 Edited by DrLostRib (4113 posts) -

uh oh, a what is a life discussion...

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#161 Edited by PraetorianMan (1914 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

@mighty-lu-bu said:

See this is where I have serious, serious issues. Organizations like Planned Parenthood like to push the narrative that having an abortion is no big deal. Watch a late term abortion where the fetus, which is a baby at this point, is dismembered, then get back to me. Even if you don't acknowledge that it is a baby or a life, it is still a potential baby or life.

I find it ridiculous that women get the green light to kill life simply based on their convenience. Oh its inconvenient to have a baby, its ok I will just have an abortion. There is no justification for killing someone unless your own life is in jeopardy. No one has the right to kill anyone simply because of either inconvenience or the level of burden someone is. Example, if I am walking down the street and suddenly I encounter a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk who is blocking my path, I have no moral right to kill them.

Gotta love the brainwashed liberals who actually justify the killing of an unborn child, and they call conservatives radicals? Please.

What kind of terribad slant is this? First of all, qualifying something that is "still a potential baby or life" as something inherently sacred that must be protected results in ludicrous positions like masturbation or the menstrual cycle being immoral since they too result in the destruction of potential human life.

The truth is a embryo is functionally identical to a sea cucumber embryo or any other deuterostome at inception. Even after its organs develop and it becomes physically identifiable as human it is still, in terms of its consciousness and sentience, functionally identical to a fish or amphibian. Trying to find a line where a fetus actually becomes functionally human is not something that any lawmaker has been able to do and probably never will be able to do.

In any case, it doesn't even matter. Abortions aren't done for "convenience". The fact that you tried to equate a woman bearing a child to a homeless man blocking your path down the sidewalk shows how wildly out of touch you are with this issue. The VAST majority of Americans believe that abortion can be morally justified at least SOME of the time, and not just in case the woman's life is in danger. Sometimes pregnancies are the result of incest and/or sexual assault, or because of "stealthing" and similar dumb shit. Sometimes a woman realistically CAN'T take care of a baby and don't really have alternative options. Not ever woman has parents/grandparents who will take care of the baby for them. Adoption realistically can never work on as large a scale as we're discussing here.

This is coming from someone who was both born two months premature and adopted. Adoption is not an answer to illegalizing abortion on a national scale. Do you honestly think there would be no repercussions if EVERY abortion performed in this country ended up being a child in the foster care system instead?

That's the issue here, and that's the issue with millennial women and the GOP. Most women probably do think abortion is morally wrong. Thinking that abortion is morally wrong isn't fanatical or even unique, but most people also recognize abortion as a necessary evil. Most people do believe that sometimes an abortion can be justified, such as a teenager being raped by a family member, and they also see that the GOP's plans to destroy Planned Parenthood and hyper-regulate abortions overall will only end up hurting those people, like that teenager, who actually really need it.

Avatar image for kittennose
#162 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@PraetorianMan said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

I do not understand the logic here. Abortion is binary. You are either ending a life before it starts, which is would be less immoral then eating a carrot, or it is the premeditated murder. One that is almost effortless to avoid outside of cases of rape, and only preformed to escape the obvious consequences of your actions.

If it is immoral and the government has no right to outlaw it, what do they have the right to outlaw? Or perhaps you perceive a middle ground I do not?

Also point 2&3 doesn't really mean anything. Outlawing child molestation doesn't stop it, and no one cares about the fallout, because it is an atrocity. If the government isn't standing against atrocity, then it can seriously go fluff it's self.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#163 Edited by mattbbpl (15727 posts) -

@drlostrib said:

uh oh, a what is a life discussion...

The can of worms is open now, this thread is over.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#164 Posted by PraetorianMan (1914 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@PraetorianMan said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

I do not understand the logic here. Abortion is binary. You are either ending a life before it starts, which is would be less immoral then eating a carrot, or it is the premeditated murder. One that is almost effortless to avoid outside of cases of rape, and only preformed to escape the obvious consequences of your actions.

If it is immoral and the government has no right to outlaw it, what do they have the right to outlaw? Or perhaps you perceive a middle ground I do not?

Also point 2&3 doesn't really mean anything. Outlawing child molestation doesn't stop it, and no one cares about the fallout, because it is an atrocity. If the government isn't standing against atrocity, then it can seriously go fluff it's self.

No its not. I can't even tell if your post was sincere or sarcastic because the way you described it was absurd and absolutely does not qualify as actually being binary. Yes there's an obvious middle ground between it being considered premeditated murder and it being on par with eating vegetables.

Avatar image for NathanDrakeSwag
#165 Posted by NathanDrakeSwag (12302 posts) -

Hopefully they don't identify as democrats either when their "queen" is married to a man that cheated on her and should be in prison for rape. What did she do? She "stood by her man" LOL. And there's the whole accepting money from Saudi Arabia thing...

Not saying the right is perfect either but lets not pretend the left actually cares about women rights.

Avatar image for kittennose
#166 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@PraetorianMan said:
@kittennose said:
@PraetorianMan said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

I do not understand the logic here. Abortion is binary. You are either ending a life before it starts, which is would be less immoral then eating a carrot, or it is the premeditated murder. One that is almost effortless to avoid outside of cases of rape, and only preformed to escape the obvious consequences of your actions.

If it is immoral and the government has no right to outlaw it, what do they have the right to outlaw? Or perhaps you perceive a middle ground I do not?

Also point 2&3 doesn't really mean anything. Outlawing child molestation doesn't stop it, and no one cares about the fallout, because it is an atrocity. If the government isn't standing against atrocity, then it can seriously go fluff it's self.

No its not. I can't even tell if your post was sincere or sarcastic because the way you described it was absurd and absolutely does not qualify as actually being binary. Yes there's an obvious middle ground between it being considered premeditated murder and it being on par with eating vegetables.

The point of such a post is to get you to explain the difference you perceive, as I do not see it. What is this middle ground you perceive, and how did you get there? How is it more immoral then getting a hair cut, but less immoral then murder?

You might see it as obvious, but that would simply mean it is easy to quantify and justify.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
#167 Posted by deactivated-5b19214ec908b (25072 posts) -

@NathanDrakeSwag: Let's say all democrat politicians are extremely sexist. So what? They aren't the ones pushing for sexist laws.

I'd much rather have a politician that hates me but protects me, than one that doesn't care about me but is trying to pass laws to harm me.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#169 Edited by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@PraetorianMan said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

@mighty-lu-bu said:

See this is where I have serious, serious issues. Organizations like Planned Parenthood like to push the narrative that having an abortion is no big deal. Watch a late term abortion where the fetus, which is a baby at this point, is dismembered, then get back to me. Even if you don't acknowledge that it is a baby or a life, it is still a potential baby or life.

I find it ridiculous that women get the green light to kill life simply based on their convenience. Oh its inconvenient to have a baby, its ok I will just have an abortion. There is no justification for killing someone unless your own life is in jeopardy. No one has the right to kill anyone simply because of either inconvenience or the level of burden someone is. Example, if I am walking down the street and suddenly I encounter a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk who is blocking my path, I have no moral right to kill them.

Gotta love the brainwashed liberals who actually justify the killing of an unborn child, and they call conservatives radicals? Please.

What kind of terribad slant is this? First of all, qualifying something that is "still a potential baby or life" as something inherently sacred that must be protected results in ludicrous positions like masturbation or the menstrual cycle being immoral since they too result in the destruction of potential human life.

The truth is a embryo is functionally identical to a sea cucumber embryo or any other deuterostome at inception. Even after its organs develop and it becomes physically identifiable as human it is still, in terms of its consciousness and sentience, functionally identical to a fish or amphibian. Trying to find a line where a fetus actually becomes functionally human is not something that any lawmaker has been able to do and probably never will be able to do.

In any case, it doesn't even matter. Abortions aren't done for "convenience". The fact that you tried to equate a woman bearing a child to a homeless man blocking your path down the sidewalk shows how wildly out of touch you are with this issue. The VAST majority of Americans believe that abortion can be morally justified at least SOME of the time, and not just in case the woman's life is in danger. Sometimes pregnancies are the result of incest and/or sexual assault, or because of "stealthing" and similar dumb shit. Sometimes a woman realistically CAN'T take care of a baby and don't really have alternative options. Not ever woman has parents/grandparents who will take care of the baby for them. Adoption realistically can never work on as large a scale as we're discussing here.

This is coming from someone who was both born two months premature and adopted. Adoption is not an answer to illegalizing abortion on a national scale. Do you honestly think there would be no repercussions if EVERY abortion performed in this country ended up being a child in the foster care system instead?

That's the issue here, and that's the issue with millennial women and the GOP. Most women probably do think abortion is morally wrong. Thinking that abortion is morally wrong isn't fanatical or even unique, but most people also recognize abortion as a necessary evil. Most people do believe that sometimes an abortion can be justified, such as a teenager being raped by a family member, and they also see that the GOP's plans to destroy Planned Parenthood and hyper-regulate abortions overall will only end up hurting those people, like that teenager, who actually really need it.

According to polls last year, 59% of women thought that abortion was "morally wrong". In addition, a whopping 77% of women agreed that abortions should only be performed in the first trimester and that most women and surprise surprise, are in favor of restricting abortions, including funding.

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/27/poll_finds_most_women_back_abortion_restrictions_132913.html

Abortion is not a complex issue, it is actually a very simplistic issue; either its murder or its not.

As you say, even if a human embryo can be compared to the embryo of a sea cucumber or whatnot, the human embryo still has intrinsic value because if left to the natural process, it will develop into a baby. The question most have is where do you draw the line or where should government draw the line? Do we draw when the baby's heart starts to beat at 6 weeks? Well, we can't really do that because there are people with pacemakers who need a machine to live. Do we draw the line at 6 weeks when the first brain wave activity is detected? Well we can't do that either because there are people in comas who have little to no brain wave activity. What exactly am I getting at? Well, any time you draw a line, you also draw a false line that can be applied to an adult human so best practice is firmly draw the line at the inception of the child.

Also, yes most abortions happen because the parents do not want to be inconvenienced or overburdened- why is that so hard to grasp? As a rule of thumb, I think its morally wrong to kill someone simply because they are an inconvenience or a burden. If you are in a coma, do I have the right to kill you? No? Well in this state you are an inconvenience and a burden, but that doesn't mean I have the right to kill you. Also, I agree with you that abortions are completely justified if the mother's life is in danger, but that isn't what we are talking about here. A vast majority of abortions occur because of financial reasons or not wanting to take responsibility, for not using contraceptives, or from contraceptives failing (most of the time it is the improper use of said contraceptives i.e. being on birth control pills and forgetting a dose).

If you don't want a child then you shouldn't be having sex and if you have to have sex then you both parties need to be willing to except the responsibilities. It all boils down to individual responsibility... nothing more, nothing less.

The argument that "it's my body and I can do whatever I want to my body" is null and void because the baby is not actually part of the women's body. Then we go down the rabbit hole discussing women's rights, but what about the baby's rights and what rights does the mother have that magically negate the rights of the baby? This argument is ironically similar to the argument that slavers had: its my property and I have the right to do whatever I want with my property. Flash forward to the abortion argument and we can see the similarities: its my body and I have the right to do whatever I want with my body.

Then we have the argument where women often say: you are a man, you have no right to dictate what we do with our bodies. Well, even though I am a man, I still can recognize when something is morally wrong.

The big problem is that the left has not only created this fantastic narrative that abortions are no big deal and that its akin to getting a flu shot, but they are also pushing abortions to be socially acceptable and I find that abysmal. Even Democrats i.e. Hillary, Bernie etc. are in favor of third trimester abortions.

Anyways, I would say that we would need to provide cheap forms of birth control, but there are already cheap forms of birth control since you can literally go to 7 Eleven and get a pack of condoms for under 10 dollars. Bottom line, there are very few instances where abortion can ever be justified, but I think outlawing or heavily restricting it would be the right course of action.

Avatar image for tryit
#170 Edited by TryIt (10561 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@PraetorianMan said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

There's a big functional difference between thinking that its wrong, and thinking a combination of 1. the government should have the right to outlaw it, 2. Outlawing it will actually effectively stop it, and 3. there won't be any fallout or drawbacks from outlawing it.

There are a LOT of people, particularly millennial women, who think abortion is morally wrong, but also smart enough to realize that the GOP's plans to outlaw it will make things worse instead of better.

@mighty-lu-bu said:

See this is where I have serious, serious issues. Organizations like Planned Parenthood like to push the narrative that having an abortion is no big deal. Watch a late term abortion where the fetus, which is a baby at this point, is dismembered, then get back to me. Even if you don't acknowledge that it is a baby or a life, it is still a potential baby or life.

I find it ridiculous that women get the green light to kill life simply based on their convenience. Oh its inconvenient to have a baby, its ok I will just have an abortion. There is no justification for killing someone unless your own life is in jeopardy. No one has the right to kill anyone simply because of either inconvenience or the level of burden someone is. Example, if I am walking down the street and suddenly I encounter a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk who is blocking my path, I have no moral right to kill them.

Gotta love the brainwashed liberals who actually justify the killing of an unborn child, and they call conservatives radicals? Please.

What kind of terribad slant is this? First of all, qualifying something that is "still a potential baby or life" as something inherently sacred that must be protected results in ludicrous positions like masturbation or the menstrual cycle being immoral since they too result in the destruction of potential human life.

The truth is a embryo is functionally identical to a sea cucumber embryo or any other deuterostome at inception. Even after its organs develop and it becomes physically identifiable as human it is still, in terms of its consciousness and sentience, functionally identical to a fish or amphibian. Trying to find a line where a fetus actually becomes functionally human is not something that any lawmaker has been able to do and probably never will be able to do.

In any case, it doesn't even matter. Abortions aren't done for "convenience". The fact that you tried to equate a woman bearing a child to a homeless man blocking your path down the sidewalk shows how wildly out of touch you are with this issue. The VAST majority of Americans believe that abortion can be morally justified at least SOME of the time, and not just in case the woman's life is in danger. Sometimes pregnancies are the result of incest and/or sexual assault, or because of "stealthing" and similar dumb shit. Sometimes a woman realistically CAN'T take care of a baby and don't really have alternative options. Not ever woman has parents/grandparents who will take care of the baby for them. Adoption realistically can never work on as large a scale as we're discussing here.

This is coming from someone who was both born two months premature and adopted. Adoption is not an answer to illegalizing abortion on a national scale. Do you honestly think there would be no repercussions if EVERY abortion performed in this country ended up being a child in the foster care system instead?

That's the issue here, and that's the issue with millennial women and the GOP. Most women probably do think abortion is morally wrong. Thinking that abortion is morally wrong isn't fanatical or even unique, but most people also recognize abortion as a necessary evil. Most people do believe that sometimes an abortion can be justified, such as a teenager being raped by a family member, and they also see that the GOP's plans to destroy Planned Parenthood and hyper-regulate abortions overall will only end up hurting those people, like that teenager, who actually really need it.

According to polls last year, 59% of women thought that abortion was "morally wrong". In addition, a whopping 77% of women agreed that abortions should only be performed in the first trimester and that most women and surprise surprise, are in favor of restricting abortions, including funding.

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/27/poll_finds_most_women_back_abortion_restrictions_132913.html

Abortion is not a complex issue, it is actually a very simplistic issue; either its murder or its not.

As you say, even if a human embryo can be compared to the embryo of a sea cucumber or whatnot, the human embryo still has intrinsic value because if left to the natural process, it will develop into a baby. The question most have is where do you draw the line or where should government draw the line? Do we draw when the baby's heart starts to beat at 6 weeks? Well, we can't really do that because there are people with pacemakers who need a machine to live. Do we draw the line at 6 weeks when the first brain wave activity is detected? Well we can't do that either because there are people in comas who have little to no brain wave activity. What exactly am I getting at? Well, any time you draw a line, you also draw a false line that can be applied to an adult human so best practice is firmly draw the line at the inception of the child.

Also, yes most abortions happen because the parents do not want to be inconvenienced or overburdened- why is that so hard to grasp? As a rule of thumb, I think its morally wrong to kill someone simply because they are an inconvenience or a burden. If you are in a coma, do I have the right to kill you? No? Well in this state you are an inconvenience and a burden, but that doesn't mean I have the right to kill you. Also, I agree with you that abortions are completely justified if the mother's life is in danger, but that isn't what we are talking about here. A vast majority of abortions occur because of financial reasons or not wanting to take responsibility, for not using contraceptives, or from contraceptives failing (most of the time it is the improper use of said contraceptives i.e. being on birth control pills and forgetting a dose).

If you don't want a child then you shouldn't be having sex and if you have to have sex then you both parties need to be willing to except the responsibilities. It all boils down to individual responsibility... nothing more, nothing less.

people just suck balz frankly, dont want more of them

Avatar image for horgen
#171 Posted by Horgen (118079 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: Yet more people consider themselves to be pro-choice than pro-life. Says so in your source.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#172 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: Yet more people consider themselves to be pro-choice than pro-life. Says so in your source.

I believe you read the study wrong.

"If politicians really want to show that they trust American women, then they should follow the advice of the overwhelming majority of us and restrict abortion in meaningful ways.

This means supporting the president’s action to ban funding of abortion internationally, which is supported by 83 percent of women, and same percentage of all Americans.

This means limiting abortion substantially through legislation. Nationwide, 77 percent of women support limiting abortion to – at most – the first trimester. That is slightly higher than the percentage of all Americans – 74 percent. Laws restricting abortion should be embraced, not resisted.

And 61 percent of women think it is important, or an immediate priority, for our government to restrict abortion in this way, a slightly higher percentage than the 59 percent of all Americans who hold this position.

Not surprisingly, the majority of American women (59 percent) say abortion is morally wrong, the same percentage of all Americans who agree.

And a majority of women (51 percent) believe that abortion causes more harm than good in the long run; 50 percent of all Americans agree.

There’s another thing too. Though abortion advocates use the term “pro-choice” as shorthand for pro-abortion, the polling shows that many – often most – people who identify as pro-choice actually support substantial restrictions on abortion.

Those who call themselves pro-life can be counted on to support such measures in overwhelming numbers, but so can majorities, or substantial minorities, of those who identify as pro-choice.

More than half of those who call themselves pro-choice would limit abortion to – at most – the first trimester. Seven in 10 who call themselves pro-choice support the end of abortion funding abroad – the policy enacted this week by President Trump."

Avatar image for horgen
#173 Posted by Horgen (118079 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Avatar image for bigfootpart2
#174 Edited by bigfootpart2 (872 posts) -

If conservatives are really against all abortion and want women having babies then why don't they support social programs that will allow that to happen?

Why don't we have paid maternity and paternity leave, universal healthcare, subsidies to help with daycare, a livable minimum wage? Other developed countries have those things. The US is not a country that is very conducive to working class people having families. Republicans are anti-abortion, but they are also very anti-family. Well at least as far as putting anything in place that would allow people to have families other than rich people.

They want to lecture a woman about what she can do with her body, but then do nothing to help support the resulting baby.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't support social programs to help mothers and babies, you aren't really pro-life. You're just some hateful misogynist who gets off on dictating to women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Will you be there footing the bill for the hundreds of thousands it costs to have a kid in the US? No? Then shut the hell up. Republican policies have created this situation where working class women can't afford to have babies. But then the Republicans want to wash their hands of it and blame the woman for getting an abortion.

Also these same every sperm is sacred pro-lifers pretty much all support the death penalty. And they see no contradiction.

Avatar image for kittennose
#175 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

There are tons of conflicting views within such a position, the most basic one is found in the slogan of the pro-choice movement it's name: "My body my choice". If you add a rider that says "Except when women are making a choice about their bodies I disagree with, then they have to be stopped with force if necessary." the slogan becomes an outright lie.

Particularly when there doesn't seem any rational reason to draw a moral distinction between a first term and a third term abortion.

Avatar image for horgen
#176 Posted by Horgen (118079 posts) -

@kittennose: Lets deal with reality and not an utopia. You don't think it is better for abortion to happen with the necessary medical knowledge and tools to perform it than the varied illegal methods are?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#177 Posted by mattbbpl (15727 posts) -

@kittennose: Bumper sticker slogans shouldn't form the basis of anyone's argument as they're designed to be minimalist appeals to emotion.

"Particularly when there doesn't seem any rational reason to draw a moral distinction between a first term and a third term abortion."

There are reasons to make such a distinction, one of which is described in current judicial precedent. You or I may disagree with those distinctions, but it does a disservice to your stance to ignore them.

Avatar image for kittennose
#178 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -
@horgen said:

@kittennose: Lets deal with reality and not an utopia. You don't think it is better for abortion to happen with the necessary medical knowledge and tools to perform it than the varied illegal methods are?

That really isn't anything more then a deflection. If you don't wish to discuss your claim that is fine, but pursuing defections doesn't seem interesting.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#179 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -

@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#180 Posted by DrLostRib (4113 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

what does that matter?

Avatar image for tryit
#181 Edited by TryIt (10561 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

so here is the thing about 'inception' and single cell organisms.

given that single cell organisms do not mate what is the point of creation? when they divide? ok well that would then mean I am not the same person as I was yesterday because my cells divide?

what about the cells in the sperm and egg that are dividing before they hit each other? is that not the life of the baby as well?

Avatar image for horgen
#182 Edited by Horgen (118079 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@horgen said:

@kittennose: Lets deal with reality and not an utopia. You don't think it is better for abortion to happen with the necessary medical knowledge and tools to perform it than the varied illegal methods are?

That really isn't anything more then a deflection. If you don't wish to discuss your claim that is fine, but pursuing defections doesn't seem interesting.

Well.. We could make a distinction around week 9. After that it is mostly growing.

Though honestly it is up to personal opinion what one consider a moral distinction. If you see no difference between first and third term abortion, why not include the first few weeks after the baby has been born?

Edit: GS is buggy when it comes notification. I didn't get yours or mightly-lu-bu...

Avatar image for bigfootpart2
#183 Edited by bigfootpart2 (872 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

Inception was a pretty good movie. I think you mean conception.

You seem awfully concerned about clusters of cells, but not all that concerned about what happens to babies once they are born. Why don't people like you support paid maternity and paternity leave, childcare subsidies, universal healthcare, etc? You know things that would actually allow working class women to have babies without having to live in crushing poverty and despair.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#184 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@bigfootpart2 said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

Inception was a pretty good movie. I think you mean conception.

You seem awfully concerned about clusters of cells, but not all that concerned about what happens to babies once they are born. Why don't people like you support paid maternity and paternity leave, childcare subsidies, universal healthcare, etc? You know things that would actually allow working class women to have babies without having to live in crushing poverty and despair.

I would refrain from making assumptions about my beliefs and the beliefs of other conservatives. Of course I care about what happens to babies when they are born- you honestly think I am going to be pro life and then all of a sudden stop caring after the baby is born? What kind of logic is that?

Also, most companies have paid maternity leave, especially in the corporate world. The company I currently work for has about to 9 weeks of paid maternity leave and almost every company I have ever worked for does this. Sure you aren't going to find paid maternity leave with a mom and pop place, but a lot of companies offer this and I don't have any objections. Guess what? My company also gives stipends for childcare.

I don't believe in universal health care because as a conservative, I fundamentally believe that healthcare isn't a right, but a commodity and it should be treated as such.

Avatar image for tryit
#185 Edited by TryIt (10561 posts) -
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@bigfootpart2 said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: It is quite possible to be pro-choice, yet thinking it should be limited to first trimester. Or does pro-choice in your opinion mean until birth? Supporting the pro-choice side does not equal to actually using it. It simply means having the choice of doing it, not that you have to do it.

There is nothing against being pro-choice and wanting limits on it. That is not conflicting views.

Based on my personal beliefs, I believe that life begins at inception. Even in an embryonic state, the unborn baby it is still technically a living organism. If we went to Mars looking for life we would classify life as a living organism even if it was a basic as a single cell organism.

Inception was a pretty good movie. I think you mean conception.

You seem awfully concerned about clusters of cells, but not all that concerned about what happens to babies once they are born. Why don't people like you support paid maternity and paternity leave, childcare subsidies, universal healthcare, etc? You know things that would actually allow working class women to have babies without having to live in crushing poverty and despair.

.. you honestly think I am going to be pro life and then all of a sudden stop caring after the baby is born? ..

yes.

that is exactly how I would argue most people on the Left see Pro Lifers... absolutely.

seemingly no care about being born in poverty, born into abuse, sending childern to war, demonizing the poor.

not saying the Right IS that way but it sure is how we on the Left see you guys...yes

Avatar image for kittennose
#186 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@horgen said:
@kittennose said:
@horgen said:

@kittennose: Lets deal with reality and not an utopia. You don't think it is better for abortion to happen with the necessary medical knowledge and tools to perform it than the varied illegal methods are?

That really isn't anything more then a deflection. If you don't wish to discuss your claim that is fine, but pursuing defections doesn't seem interesting.

Well.. We could make a distinction around week 9. After that it is mostly growing.

Though honestly it is up to personal opinion what one consider a moral distinction. If you see no difference between first and third term abortion, why not include the first few weeks after the baby has been born?

Edit: GS is buggy when it comes notification. I didn't get yours or mightly-lu-bu...

I am asking you to actually justify the line you have drawn, as you are the one claiming that there is no contradiction.

Why is it perfectly okay to get an abortion at nine weeks, but the government is justified in using force to prevent one at ten? Can you make any sort of argument explaining why outlawing abortion before the line is an infringement upon freedom, but allowing them after the line is an infringement upon life?

To answer your question: I have yet to come across any compelling argument on the subject of abortion. My personal position on the subject is: "Any lines I try to draw on this topic are incredibly arbitrary and driven by emotion" so until someone offers a quality argument, or I come up with one on my own, I have no justification for force others to comply with my feelings.

Heck, the closest thing I have to a solution to the debate is to use science to avoid the question. Pelt teenagers with birth control and fast track artificial wombs. I am not sure rationality will ever provide an answer that isn't disturbing. It will only allow us to outgrow the need to worry about it.

Avatar image for heathen75
#187 Posted by HEATHEN75 (301 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: I don't believe in universal health care because as a conservative, I fundamentally believe that healthcare isn't a right, but a commodity and it should be treated as such.

That is why people say conservatives only care about the baby until it is born. So what happens if poor people have a baby instead of aborting it and that baby gets sick but the parents can't afford the treatment that baby requires? I guess that baby should have planned better and been born to better off parents.

Avatar image for tryit
#188 Posted by TryIt (10561 posts) -
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: I don't believe in universal health care because as a conservative, I fundamentally believe that healthcare isn't a right, but a commodity and it should be treated as such.

I have to jump in a second.

something being a right or not is not related to the question of is it more effective in a universal method.

Military is not a 'right', police is not a 'right' fire departments are not 'rights'.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#189 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -

@heathen75:

That's a poverty scenerio, not an abortion scenerio. You can't solve poverty since it has always been around, but we can try to alleviate it by figuring out why people are poor and how we can attempt to bring them up.

According to the Brookings Institute, which a left leaning organization, there are three simple ways to avoid poverty:

1. Graduate from high school

2. Don't have kids out of wedlock and wait until 21 before having kids

3. Having a full time job

If you so these things, you only have a 2% chance of being in poverty, but you have a roughly 70% chance of being in the middle class.

The problem is, an overwhelmingly vast majority of the time, people do not follow these rules and they end up in poverty. If two people are already in poverty and they decide to have a baby then that is just them making bad decisions. People aren't poor because we have an unfair system in America, people poor because they make excessively bad decisions and they are terrible with money. When you add abortion to the mix you are just enforcing even more bad decisions and now you are promoting the idea that abortions are a form of contraceptive, which they shouldn't be.

Avatar image for heathen75
#190 Posted by HEATHEN75 (301 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

Avatar image for bigfootpart2
#191 Edited by bigfootpart2 (872 posts) -
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

Avatar image for horgen
#192 Posted by Horgen (118079 posts) -

@kittennose said:

I am asking you to actually justify the line you have drawn, as you are the one claiming that there is no contradiction.

Why is it perfectly okay to get an abortion at nine weeks, but the government is justified in using force to prevent one at ten? Can you make any sort of argument explaining why outlawing abortion before the line is an infringement upon freedom, but allowing them after the line is an infringement upon life?

To answer your question: I have yet to come across any compelling argument on the subject of abortion. My personal position on the subject is: "Any lines I try to draw on this topic are incredibly arbitrary and driven by emotion" so until someone offers a quality argument, or I come up with one on my own, I have no justification for force others to comply with my feelings.

Heck, the closest thing I have to a solution to the debate is to use science to avoid the question. Pelt teenagers with birth control and fast track artificial wombs. I am not sure rationality will ever provide an answer that isn't disturbing. It will only allow us to outgrow the need to worry about it.

I believe I already stated why we could make a difference around week 9. While it doesn't look very much like a baby, the essentials organs and skeleton is made by that time. After that the fetus basically only has to grow. I think nails and hair comes later.. That was only a suggestion to where one could draw the line. However if your view is that it is something living right from the conception, I doubt anything I say here will ever convince you otherwise.

From nature side though, abortion is not an uncommon thing. Norwegian encyclopedia states that scientists estimate the abortion rate to be close to 50%... Sorry, miscarriage it is called then. Other places I read something like 30%.

Given that it seems to be a need for it, I think it should be legal. Rather have it done by professionals than on someone's kitchen table. With proper sex-ed and perhaps a change in culture some places, the need for it should drop quite drastically.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#193 Edited by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@bigfootpart2 said:
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? Not only is that not true, but that is another blanket statement, what a shocker!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live. The punishment should fit the crime; if you take someone's life then you lose your own.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and to this day I donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I was always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always treated my parents in an honorable and respectful matter and I was taught to always treat others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. I have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions so I suggest that you keep your radical opinions to yourself- most people don't think like you do, most people think like I do. This isn't about being liberal or conservative, but being a good person.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#194 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164607 posts) -

Hmmm....all this argument over abortions. Just an FYI if the mother wants a later term abortion when legal and the child is born alive...........they have to let it die. That is wrong. That is a living breathing person at that point.

Avatar image for n64dd
#195 Posted by N64DD (10426 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@bigfootpart2 said:
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? What a shocker, another blanket statement!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and that through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always given honorable and respectful towards my parents and I have always treated others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions.

I'm not going to attack your belief system in terms of faith, because that's not my business. Just two things in all of that.

Never hitting women. So if you come home, your wife has drowned 2 kids already and is about to dunk the third one, you aren't going to hit her?

Second, I understand why you are for the death penalty. My question for you is, being a conservative myself, what justice is given to those who are wrongfully accused of the death penalty?

Avatar image for kittennose
#196 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@horgen said:

I believe I already stated why we could make a difference around week 9. While it doesn't look very much like a baby, the essentials organs and skeleton is made by that time. After that the fetus basically only has to grow. I think nails and hair comes later.. That was only a suggestion to where one could draw the line. However if your view is that it is something living right from the conception, I doubt anything I say here will ever convince you otherwise.

From nature side though, abortion is not an uncommon thing. Norwegian encyclopedia states that scientists estimate the abortion rate to be close to 50%... Sorry, miscarriage it is called then. Other places I read something like 30%.

Given that it seems to be a need for it, I think it should be legal. Rather have it done by professionals than on someone's kitchen table. With proper sex-ed and perhaps a change in culture some places, the need for it should drop quite drastically.

If the justification for the line you draw is nothing more then "Well it sort of looks like a baby then" I don't see any reason why you are any different then those who want to ban the morning after pill.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#197 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@bigfootpart2 said:
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? What a shocker, another blanket statement!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and that through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always given honorable and respectful towards my parents and I have always treated others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions.

I'm not going to attack your belief system in terms of faith, because that's not my business. Just two things in all of that.

Never hitting women. So if you come home, your wife has drowned 2 kids already and is about to dunk the third one, you aren't going to hit her?

Second, I understand why you are for the death penalty. My question for you is, being a conservative myself, what justice is given to those who are wrongfully accused of the death penalty?

I recognize the scenario because it was taken from one of Bill Burr's comedy specials.

What would be gained from hitting her? If I hit my girlfriend full force I would end up killing her and I would be the one going to jail too. I am physically superior to a vast majority of women out there and through my Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training and strength I would be able to hold them down and call the cops. Furthermore, this is a complete fantasy scenario that would never happen to me- I would never be with someone who was capable of this nor would I ever put myself in that situation.

Now for your question question, if we are talking about killing people then we better be damned sure that they did. I would also like to point out that people who are being put to death and who are also "wrongfully accused" is an extreme rarity. It happens, but not as often as you would think.

Avatar image for n64dd
#198 Posted by N64DD (10426 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@bigfootpart2 said:
@heathen75 said:

@mighty-lu-bu: So because the kid is born to parents in poverty, he or she does not deserve access to medical care because their parents made bad choices?

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? What a shocker, another blanket statement!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and that through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always given honorable and respectful towards my parents and I have always treated others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions.

I'm not going to attack your belief system in terms of faith, because that's not my business. Just two things in all of that.

Never hitting women. So if you come home, your wife has drowned 2 kids already and is about to dunk the third one, you aren't going to hit her?

Second, I understand why you are for the death penalty. My question for you is, being a conservative myself, what justice is given to those who are wrongfully accused of the death penalty?

I recognize the scenario because it was taken from one of Bill Burr's comedy specials.

What would be gained from hitting her? If I hit my girlfriend full force I would end up killing her and I would be the one going to jail too. I am physically superior to a vast majority of women out there and through my Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training and strength I would be able to hold them down and call the cops. Furthermore, this is a complete fantasy scenario that would never happen to me- I would never be with someone who was capable of this nor would I ever put myself in that situation.

Now for your question question, if we are talking about killing people then we better be damned sure that they did. I would also like to point out that people who are being put to death and who are also "wrongfully accused" is an extreme rarity. It happens, but not as often as you would think.

1. Was it Daniel Tosh or Bill Burr? I completely stole it from the skit. Love both btw. You know what I mean though, I was just attacking the idea of NEVER. I was raised very traditional as well as you were and i'm proud of it.

2. It happens enough to make me think twice. The main deterrent in the death penalty is the cost of appeals and such which I don't care about.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#199 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2968 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@bigfootpart2 said:

That is absolutely what he is arguing. Conservatives are a bunch of social darwinists without even knowing what that term means. They believe poor people deserve punishment for being poor and only the strongest deserve to survive.

Also poverty can be solved. Scandinavian countries have essentially no poverty. Maybe we should be looking at what they do right instead of continuing with failed social policies and blaming the poor.

Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions. They don't like abortion but they don't want to do anything like provide contraception or good social programs to prevent abortion. And they believe in a society based on social darwinist principles like survival of the fittest, and yet they don't believe in evolution. They claim to be "pro-life" but love gun culture and the death penalty. They claim to be the party of freedom, but actually love authoritarianism. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a Republican is truly incredible.

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? What a shocker, another blanket statement!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and that through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always given honorable and respectful towards my parents and I have always treated others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions.

I'm not going to attack your belief system in terms of faith, because that's not my business. Just two things in all of that.

Never hitting women. So if you come home, your wife has drowned 2 kids already and is about to dunk the third one, you aren't going to hit her?

Second, I understand why you are for the death penalty. My question for you is, being a conservative myself, what justice is given to those who are wrongfully accused of the death penalty?

I recognize the scenario because it was taken from one of Bill Burr's comedy specials.

What would be gained from hitting her? If I hit my girlfriend full force I would end up killing her and I would be the one going to jail too. I am physically superior to a vast majority of women out there and through my Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training and strength I would be able to hold them down and call the cops. Furthermore, this is a complete fantasy scenario that would never happen to me- I would never be with someone who was capable of this nor would I ever put myself in that situation.

Now for your question question, if we are talking about killing people then we better be damned sure that they did. I would also like to point out that people who are being put to death and who are also "wrongfully accused" is an extreme rarity. It happens, but not as often as you would think.

1. Was it Daniel Tosh or Bill Burr? I completely stole it from the skit. Love both btw. You know what I mean though, I was just attacking the idea of NEVER. I was raised very traditional as well as you were and i'm proud of it.

2. It happens enough to make me think twice. The main deterrent in the death penalty is the cost of appeals and such which I don't care about.

Tosh did that original skit and then Bill Burr did something a little similar I think- but either way they are both hilarious.

"There are plenty of reasons to hit a women, you just don't."

-Bill Burr

I think the entire legal system needs to be revamped, but until that happens, mistakes are going to keep happening.

Avatar image for n64dd
#200 Posted by N64DD (10426 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:

I never said that I don't think they deserve medical care, but how do people get medical care? They pay for it. I suggest that you start working on your reading skills because I NEVER said that poor people deserve to be punished, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of... there you go again making random blanket statements that have zero basis in fact.

Also, we can't do what the Scandinavian countries are doing because they are unique and completely different from us- I have gotten into this argument before with you and I am not going to get into this argument again.

"Republicans are a fascinating mass of contradictions" there you go yet again, making yet another blanket statement. Are you 100% incapable of making statements that have some basis in fact? Why don't we like abortions? Because we think it is morally wrong to kill people. Also, I have said in a previous post that I don't have any problems with contraceptives and lo and behold, most conservatives don't care if people use contraceptives either. When you say we don't like to provide contraceptives, what does that even mean? Is it our duty as conservatives to provide contraceptives now? Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap- you can get a pack of condoms at your local gas station for under $10. Furthermore, most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized budget, so I am failing to see your argument here. Good social programs? Like what? Give me an example. Most of the social programs that we have in America are abused- give me a better solution, but I literally gave you the solution in a previous post. If you follow the Brookings Institute rules you only have a 2% chance of ending up in poverty, yet Republicans and conservatives alike are evil because we are telling people to make better decisions?

Social Darwinist principles? I simply cannot take you seriously. Again if people made "better" decisions, then there would be less poverty, but these proven concepts seems to go right over your head. We don't believe in evolution? What a shocker, another blanket statement!

Don't get it twisted, I am pro life meaning I am against abortion, but I fully believe that murderers, yes those people that intentionally kill other people, should be put to death for their crimes, yet you leftist would rather them be living in a prison somewhere where they are given food, clothes, a decent place to sleep, and where us tax payers have to pay for this pieces of human filth to live.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by my mom and dad and eventually my mom and stepdad. I was taught proper table etiquette while dining, I was taught that if I went into the kitchen, that I had to ask everyone if they needed a refreshment. From the age of 3 I was taught between what was right and what was wrong. I was taught by my parents how to be a proper gentlemen: I was taught that I should always get the door for a woman, that I should always get out to pump their gas, that I should NEVER under any circumstances hit or strike a woman, that I should walk on the street side while holding their hand in case a car hopped the curb and that it essence it was my duty to protect women. I was taught that nothing in life was given for free and that through hard work and determination you can achieve the impossible. I was taught to help others when they are in need and donate to various charities on a monthly basis. I always told that if I was going to have sex that I needed to use protection. I was always taught that being an American meant that I needed to demonstrate a certain degree of individual responsibility. I taught that it is honorable to serve your country in the military, especially during times of war. I have always given honorable and respectful towards my parents and I have always treated others how I would like to be treated. I was taught the importance of working by my parents and I got my first job 1 month before my 15th birthday. I was encouraged to do well in high school and how important it was for me to graduate and I have never got anyone pregnant.

I have been making excellent choices my entire life and I have become a true success. By the time I am 38, I will have more money then I know what to do with. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids these values so good traditional values are not being passed on to the next generation. You can call me a bigot, you can say that I hate the poor, that I am a social Darwinist, but this doesn't bug me because words don't hurt my feelings. have been a conservative my entire life and it has only been in the last few years were people like you demonize me simply based on my beliefs. You know nothing about my loses in life, you know nothing about my struggles and you know NOTHING about who I am as an individual. All you have is your assumptions; please tell me how my values are wrong. Please, educate me on why I am not a good person because I would really love to hear this. It is not wrong to tell people who are making bad decisions to make better decisions.

I'm not going to attack your belief system in terms of faith, because that's not my business. Just two things in all of that.

Never hitting women. So if you come home, your wife has drowned 2 kids already and is about to dunk the third one, you aren't going to hit her?

Second, I understand why you are for the death penalty. My question for you is, being a conservative myself, what justice is given to those who are wrongfully accused of the death penalty?

I recognize the scenario because it was taken from one of Bill Burr's comedy specials.

What would be gained from hitting her? If I hit my girlfriend full force I would end up killing her and I would be the one going to jail too. I am physically superior to a vast majority of women out there and through my Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training and strength I would be able to hold them down and call the cops. Furthermore, this is a complete fantasy scenario that would never happen to me- I would never be with someone who was capable of this nor would I ever put myself in that situation.

Now for your question question, if we are talking about killing people then we better be damned sure that they did. I would also like to point out that people who are being put to death and who are also "wrongfully accused" is an extreme rarity. It happens, but not as often as you would think.

1. Was it Daniel Tosh or Bill Burr? I completely stole it from the skit. Love both btw. You know what I mean though, I was just attacking the idea of NEVER. I was raised very traditional as well as you were and i'm proud of it.

2. It happens enough to make me think twice. The main deterrent in the death penalty is the cost of appeals and such which I don't care about.

Tosh did that original skit and then Bill Burr did something a little similar I think- but either way they are both hilarious.

"There are plenty of reasons to hit a women, you just don't."

-Bill Burr

I think the entire legal system needs to be revamped, but until that happens, mistakes are going to keep happening.

Agreed.