Facts and Logical Consistency

[StrawHat]

Maybe I just missed it, but why haven't things like the foster care system, health care, and economic solutions been brought up more in the abortion debate, particularly by pro-lifers.

I mean, one of the most common arguments given by people who are pro-choice is that sometimes abortion occurs out of economic necessity. A woman cannot support another child. If this is so, why haven't people who are pro-life responded that they will get behind legislation to support woman with dependents? Why haven't people who say that people should have children and the put them up for adoption been at the forefront of inspecting adoption practices and fixing foster care? Is it just that people haven't thought this all the way through?

Also, please don't give the "they hate woman" response. That's sort of idiotic. I've not met one pro-lifer who categorically hates woman. It's a difference of how the debate is framed.

Also, why not be at the forefront of pushing contraception in schools? Lots of people who get abortions are teenage girls. If you can't stop them from having sex, why not stop them from aborting their kids by helping them not get pregnant? Isn't that more important, since the kids that wouldn't have sex probably won't with or without contraceptives present, while the kids who would will usually do so with or without contraception?

 

[mikhail]

I dont think this debate will ever be won.I kinda think both sides have some valid logic to their claims.I have weighed the issue up several times and everytime i think ive decided where i stand i have rethought through it and jumped back on the fence.

On the one hand the bunch of cells for while after conception to me cant really be seen as a baby but its undeniable it will likely become one if left without outside interference.On the other hand many many animals know to kill its young or young it cant provide so it can provide for others in the future/present and this maybe what women are doing.But then again we are not like other animals and at least in rich societies its unlikely these children will go without the most basic needs another animal would kill its children for.Then again i believe humans to be much more complex than other animals and are needs uncomparable to other animals.I can go round and round like this for ever and i never get an answer im happy with.

 

[DarkWizard12]

This "abortion" debate is just another distraction brought to you by the government. At the time Abortion was legalized, a huge majority of people didn't want it, but it was legalized for one specific purpose. And no, it wasn't for women's rights, the politicians new better than to debate whether a fetus is a life or not, no, the debate on the floor was whether or not it could be taxed, and guess which side won?

Yup, all for the money. You feminists and your wallets have successully been raped by the government.

 

[StrawHat]

It might have been an issue brought by the government, but it wouldn't have flown if nobody cared. I mean, the government couldn't make something like "treehouse deaths" an issue.

 

[mpg]

why haven't people who are pro-life responded that they will get behind legislation to support woman with dependents?

You never heard of welfare, Medicare, food stamps, etc?

 

[StrawHat]

Yea, but lots of conservatives don't even like social programs, and mostly conservatives oppose legalized abortions.

 

[talloulou]

Yea, but lots of conservatives don't even like social programs, and mostly conservatives oppose legalized abortions.

That's because most conservatives find many social programs to be more harmful than beneficial and we don't like peeing (I can't believe I can't say *******)away our money. But conservatives are charitable folks. There's nothing wrong with wanting to decide who to give your money to and when to give it.

 

[StrawHat]

Fine, but it's difficult to deny that without social programs, lots of money would not go to women like those i've described.

 

[Felicity]

Lower the tax burden and REQUIRE a percentage of income donated to charities of CHOICE...It's all about "choice" isn't it? Let's put our money (and policies) were our mouth is. Let me CHOOSE where my money goes and damned straight it would go to care for mothers and children. As it is, I have no choice as to where my money goes, and I don't like, nor trust, the social programs that are currently (supposedly) dealing with women and children in need.

 

[scourge99]

Lower the tax burden and REQUIRE a percentage of income donated to charities of CHOICE...It's all about "choice" isn't it? Let's put our money (and policies) were our mouth is. Let me CHOOSE where my money goes and damned straight it would go to care for mothers and children. As it is, I have no choice as to where my money goes, and I don't like, nor trust, the social programs that are currently (supposedly) dealing with women and children in need.

If you run for office you can decide where the money goes. We live in a republic and not a democracy because the average joe is an emotionally charged irrational idiot.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you run for office you can decide where the money goes. We live in a republic and not a democracy because the average joe is an emotionally charged irrational idiot.

This is right on target and why the idea of gutting social programs and making it 'charity by choice' is foolish and would never yield any positive results. Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who, not only, wouldn't give a penny out of choice for charity, but would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

I also submit that, by their mere participation in this forum, most posters are socially conscious and politically savvy enough to not fall under the description of 'most people' that I gave.

 

[Felicity]

Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who, not only, wouldn't give a penny out of choice for charity, but would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

Why is it that whenever I present this idea, everyone skips over the MANDATORY part of the giving to charity?

It's in the first line and I even capitalized the word "require."

Lower the tax burden and REQUIRE a percentage of income donated to charities of CHOICE

 

[Felicity]

If you run for office you can decide where the money goes.

No...only if I won office would I have any say. Yeah right...that's gonna happen:rofl

We live in a republic and not a democracy because the average joe is an emotionally charged irrational idiot.

That's fine.
I thought the thread was just looking for possibilities. I think the free market-type approach to the issue can help. People like their money--and even if they have to give it away--even FORCED to give it away by mandated government policies--they would be selective about the charities they give to and that would drive the charities to be accountable for appropriate distribution and spending.

As it is--with taxes--too many people think they are getting a bonus check when they get their returns, rather than getting what they already earned, but never received. If one has to specifically designate where his money goes rather than this nebulous governmental machine that is a bureaucratic mess, one might be more apt to recognize it's really his money--his earnings--and feel a responsibility to make sure it goes to specific reputable places. People will more likely care how that place is run, because they realize their contribution, and the charity will realize if it isn't responsible to its donators, and those populations it serves, the money the charities receive could dry up through people deciding to donate elsewhere.

 

[OKgrannie]

No...only if I won office would I have any say. Yeah right...that's gonna happen:rofl



That's fine.
I thought the thread was just looking for possibilities. I think the free market-type approach to the issue can help. People like their money--and even if they have to give it away--even FORCED to give it away by mandated government policies--they would be selective about the charities they give to and that would drive the charities to be accountable for appropriate distribution and spending.

As it is--with taxes--too many people think they are getting a bonus check when they get their returns, rather than getting what they already earned, but never received. If one has to specifically designate where his money goes rather than this nebulous governmental machine that is a bureaucratic mess, one might be more apt to recognize it's really his money--his earnings--and feel a responsibility to make sure it goes to specific reputable places. People will more likely care how that place is run, because they realize their contribution, and the charity will realize if it isn't responsible to its donators, and those populations it serves, the money the charities receive could dry up through people deciding to donate elsewhere.

(1)Private organizations are not necessarily any better at solving the problems of the disadvantaged.

(2)People are not necessarily well-informed enough to make the decision as to where the true need is; we would end up with some charities receiving more money than needed, others would still suffer.

(3)Under current guidelines, it would give charities the right to force recipients to attend religious programs before receiving help.

(4)Charities would be forced to spend a great deal of money for advertising, so a large percentage of money donated would not go toward the actual need.

 

[rivrrat]

This is right on target and why the idea of gutting social programs and making it 'charity by choice' is foolish and would never yield any positive results. Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who, not only, wouldn't give a penny out of choice for charity, but would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

I also submit that, by their mere participation in this forum, most posters are socially conscious and politically savvy enough to not fall under the description of 'most people' that I gave.

It's still THEIR money. It's not someone else's place to say where they should put it. If they want to invest it foolishly, then so be it.

As for the selfish part, I think you're wrong. But regardless, if the majority of the people do not wish to give to charity, then so be it. The people have spoken. Forcefully taking their money away from them isn't the way to handle it.

 

[OKgrannie]

This is right on target and why the idea of gutting social programs and making it 'charity by choice' is foolish and would never yield any positive results. Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who, not only, wouldn't give a penny out of choice for charity, but would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

I also submit that, by their mere participation in this forum, most posters are socially conscious and politically savvy enough to not fall under the description of 'most people' that I gave.

Nice save. :good_job:

 

[Felicity]

(1)Private organizations are not necessarily any better at solving the problems of the disadvantaged.

Government run programs SUCK right now.

(2)People are not necessarily well-informed enough to make the decision as to where the true need is; we would end up with some charities receiving more money than needed, others would still suffer.

Have the sucky government run programs the default for lazy or stupid people.

(3)Under current guidelines, it would give charities the right to force recipients to attend religious programs before receiving help.

So? Last I checked, I live in a free country. If that's not what the people want, they don't have to contribute to such programs. BTW--before you rip on this idea--consider the demographics and political leanings of some of the richest folk in the US.

(4)Charities would be forced to spend a great deal of money for advertising, so a large percentage of money donated would not go toward the actual need.

So? The donators could consider that as they pledge their money.

 

[talloulou]

This is right on target and why the idea of gutting social programs and making it 'charity by choice' is foolish and would never yield any positive results. Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who, not only, wouldn't give a penny out of choice for charity, but would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

I also submit that, by their mere participation in this forum, most posters are socially conscious and politically savvy enough to not fall under the description of 'most people' that I gave.

People are actually surprisingly generous. I don't think all social programs should be scraped by any means. However I do think some do more harm then good and some encourage folks to become institutionalized on a welfare style of life vs seeing time spent on welfare as a temporary transition. Too many social programs don't produce the "thanks" one would expect. Some also completely backfire as "motivation." Instead you end up with folks with a false sense of entitlement blaming everyone but themselves for their sorry state.
And the amount of money that is wasted in bureaucratic nightmare before it ever gets to help someone is insane.

Anyway one merely has to look around and see the piles of food at food drives, the diapers and clothes, ect to see how generous people are. I do lots of volunteer work so I see it on a weekly basis. People are in fact genuinely good and giving. PTAs across the country are doing amazing things for their schools and they are completely run on donations & fundraisers, completely.
Whenever their is a natural disaster people come out in droves to give. Ask people and they'll tell you their favorite charities and generally they're charities for women and children. Men do sort of get the short end of the stick. Charities for men, and men only, have the hardest time collecting money and goods. But children? We don't like to see children in need. Most cities have numerous varied programs for women and children. People are generous. You have to be sort of blind to disagree. Or maybe you live somewhere where folks are just different and incredibly selfish. But I've lived in a bunch of different states and I find people to be generous across the board.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Most people are self-centered, emotional idiots, who ... would place it where emotions would send it, not logic or need.

Unfortunately, our legislators are driven by this same process-- both their own knee-jerk emotional responses, and their need to cater to the emotions of their constituents-- and so governmental assistance programs are typically just as short-sighted.

 

[scourge99]

Unfortunately, our legislators are driven by this same process-- both their own knee-jerk emotional responses, and their need to cater to the emotions of their constituents-- and so governmental assistance programs are typically just as short-sighted.

They may not be the cream of the crop but most of them aren't the bottom. Its not the best system but its better than any of the alternatives.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Why is it that whenever I present this idea, everyone skips over the MANDATORY part of the giving to charity?

It's in the first line and I even capitalized the word "require."

This creates little difference between a government program and a private one if using the word 'REQUIRE"...except I prefer the government one for the reasons granny gave.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It's still THEIR money. It's not someone else's place to say where they should put it. If they want to invest it foolishly, then so be it.

Doesn't change the fact that social programs are needed for a segment of society that didn't create the problems they may be encountering.

As for the selfish part, I think you're wrong. But regardless, if the majority of the people do not wish to give to charity, then so be it. The people have spoken. Forcefully taking their money away from them isn't the way to handle it.

This entire statement is a contradiction:

As for the selfish part, I think you're wrong.

But regardless, if the majority of the people do not wish to give to charity, then so be it.

Showing the selfishness of people.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Government run programs SUCK right now.

Don't agree The programs I have needed/used have be superior to private charities.

Have the sucky government run programs the default for lazy or stupid people.

Since most people are ill-informed and make decisions based on emotions rather than logic, those in need would require the government programs.

So? Last I checked, I live in a free country. If that's not what the people want, they don't have to contribute to such programs. BTW--before you rip on this idea--consider the demographics and political leanings of some of the richest folk in the US.

This is probably a basic philosophical difference between us. Since my premise is that most people are selfish and self-focused, and those in real need will not get voluntary assistance from most, social programs are imperative towards discriminating against some whose problems may not be self-created.

So? The donators could consider that as they pledge their money.

Sure. And the group that spends the most money on effective advertising, wins. This is how your charity dollars would be spent. Good organizations, who spend less on advertising and more on assistance could get short-changed. And no, most people would not investigate the percentages of how much is spent on assistance and how much is spent on administrative costs, and such.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

People are actually surprisingly generous. I don't think all social programs should be scraped by any means. However I do think some do more harm then good and some encourage folks to become institutionalized on a welfare style of life vs seeing time spent on welfare as a temporary transition. Too many social programs don't produce the "thanks" one would expect. Some also completely backfire as "motivation." Instead you end up with folks with a false sense of entitlement blaming everyone but themselves for their sorry state.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. Government programs are not absent from these sorts of things. Certainly some changes need to be made.

And the amount of money that is wasted in bureaucratic nightmare before it ever gets to help someone is insane.

Don't completely disagree with what you are saying here, either, though far more money needs to be spent on government programs because of the large scale and population they must address.

Anyway one merely has to look around and see the piles of food at food drives, the diapers and clothes, ect to see how generous people are. I do lots of volunteer work so I see it on a weekly basis. People are in fact genuinely good and giving. PTAs across the country are doing amazing things for their schools and they are completely run on donations & fundraisers, completely.
Whenever their is a natural disaster people come out in droves to give. Ask people and they'll tell you their favorite charities and generally they're charities for women and children. Men do sort of get the short end of the stick. Charities for men, and men only, have the hardest time collecting money and goods. But children? We don't like to see children in need. Most cities have numerous varied programs for women and children. People are generous. You have to be sort of blind to disagree. Or maybe you live somewhere where folks are just different and incredibly selfish. But I've lived in a bunch of different states and I find people to be generous across the board.

I don't see people as being as generous as you. Perhaps it is the area I live, though I hear consistent things from friends in different parts of the country. Some charities do good work. However, the scale that government social programs must deal is beyond the scope of a private institution.

 

[rivrrat]

Doesn't change the fact that social programs are needed for a segment of society that didn't create the problems they may be encountering.

No, they're not "needed".

This entire statement is a contradiction:



Showing the selfishness of people.

No, it is not a contradiction. I stated that I think you're wrong regarding the amount that people would (and do) donate to charities, especially if their money wasn't constantly stolen from them. Then I followed that statement with an IF statement.

IF they do not donate to charity - as you seem to think they wouldn't - then so be it.

They are two completely different statements. One stating what I believe how things stand in the present, and the other is a hypothetical regarding the future based on what you feel things stand in the present. Hardly contradictory at all.