This is it. [W:272]

[cpwill]

Re: This is it.

I appreciate this nun stating eloquently how the anti-abortion position is not, in any way, a position that promotes life. But I really doubt that there is any reasonable, middle-ground, type of anti-abortion argument. And that is because every single anti-abortion position I have ever encountered, when you peel back the surface, is about controlling and condemning female sexuality. It's about making women pay for having sex. Always. That's what "it" really is.

:roll: no. That is what the pro-abortion movement wants it to be about, because it neatly opposes their motivation, which is to preserve freedom of movement and choice for women.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

This is your one post? Really?

Because it should. If we don't help the least among us, we are worthless as human beings. The government is supposed to represent all people, not just those who are rich or well off. After you pay your taxes, what it is used for is up to your elected officials as it is not YOURS anymore.

You mean this is my first post. Not my one post. Anyways yoy don't have to give money to less fortunate people in order to represent them. Being against social programs is not anti-poor or anti-life. Thats just ridiculous to me to think. And pro-life when talked about in abortions means against abortion just as pro-choice means pro abortion whether you actually think it is right or not is irrelevant. If you are pro- choice you are pro abortion. You want it generally legal and pro life means you want it generally illegal. Apologize for the ramble and tangent but yea there it is

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

Because the promotion of civil society is a legitimate interest of government. It always has been

I agree but taking money from one person and giving it to another does not have to be how the government promotes a civil society. Laws are the main way the government does this.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.

Amen!

 

[Black Dog]

Re: This is it.

You mean this is my first post. Not my one post. Anyways yoy don't have to give money to less fortunate people in order to represent them.

Please point out where I said anything about representing anyone for any reason?

Being against social programs is not anti-poor or anti-life.

Then what is it? It certainly is not helping the poor or saving children? So what is it?

Thats just ridiculous to me to think. And pro-life when talked about in abortions means against abortion just as pro-choice means pro abortion whether you actually think it is right or not is irrelevant.

Wow... just wow.

If you are pro- choice you are pro abortion. You want it generally legal and pro life means you want it generally illegal. Apologize for the ramble and tangent but yea there it is

Yea there it is. :shock:

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

I agree but taking money from one person and giving it to another does not have to be how the government promotes a civil society. Laws are the main way the government does this.

What's the purpose of a government if not to provide the minimal amount of services necessary to ensure the protection of liberty and the rights of the people?

How can a government claim to protect the rights of the people if it does not do what is necessary to ensure that all children have the basic necessities of life? This is the minimum a government must do to protect the lives of the innocent. How could a society prioritize expenditures of tax dollars for other purposes while this need is unmet?

 

[nota bene]

Re: This is it.

You mean this is my first post. Not my one post. Anyways yoy don't have to give money to less fortunate people in order to represent them. Being against social programs is not anti-poor or anti-life. Thats just ridiculous to me to think. And pro-life when talked about in abortions means against abortion just as pro-choice means pro abortion whether you actually think it is right or not is irrelevant. If you are pro- choice you are pro abortion. You want it generally legal and pro life means you want it generally illegal. Apologize for the ramble and tangent but yea there it is

I appreciate your candor.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

So you're pro-choice then?

No I am pro life

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

What's the purpose of a government if not to provide the minimal amount of services necessary to ensure the protection of liberty and the rights of the people?

How can a government claim to protect the rights of the people if it does not do what is necessary to ensure that all children have the basic necessities of life? This is the minimum a government must do to protect the lives of the innocent. How could a society prioritize expenditures of tax dollars for other purposes while this need is unmet?

The purpose of government isn't to provide for people by giving them what they need. it is to protect them so they can get what they need on their own.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

Please point out where I said anything about representing anyone for any reason?



Then what is it? It certainly is not helping the poor or saving children? So what is it?



Wow... just wow.



Yea there it is. :shock:

Take this as what I said went over your head as you really didn't respond to it. And you mentioned representing only rich people if you don't give money to the poor.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: This is it.

Take this as what I said went over your head as you really didn't respond to it. And you mentioned representing only rich people if you don't give money to the poor.

I did not respond because it was stupid and/or made little sense to what I or the OP I posted said. It was meaningless prattle and little else.

You are a really good example of the hypocrisy nonsense the comments are about.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

I appreciate your candor.

Thank you. All I can be is honest. No point in being anything else

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

I did not respond because it was stupid and/or made little sense to what I or the OP I posted said. It was meaningless prattle and little else.

It was a direct response to your response. The second part I said was a ramble. The first part was not. And yes it does have to do with the OP saying you are not pro life if you are against govt giving to the poor financially

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

The purpose of government isn't to provide for people by giving them what they need. it is to protect them so they can get what they need on their own.

A government that lets children starve is not protecting them.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: This is it.

It was a direct response to your response. The second part I said was a ramble. The first part was not. And yes it does have to do with the OP saying you are not pro life if you are against govt giving to the poor financially

I did not say anything even close. The article said you are a hypocrite for taking such a position, and had nothing at all to do with you being pro life or not because of it.

Reading comprehension is fundamental.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

A government that lets children starve is not protecting them.

Is it the government letting them starve or society? We need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children and not rely on the govt t9 do it for us

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

Is it the government letting them starve or society? We need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children and not rely on the govt t9 do it for us

In a democratic society, the government represents the will of the society.

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

I did not say anything even close. The article said you are a hypocrite, and had nothing at all to do with you being pro life.

Reading comprehension is fundamental.

Yup and my response is right on topic. And you did mention only representing the rich. I responded to that too. So don't sit there and throw cheap shots when I responded on topic

 

[Grapin65]

Re: This is it.

In a democratic society, the government represents the will of the society.

In a perfect world yes.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: This is it.

Yup and my response is right on topic.

It's not even close. Your post is to stupid for words and shows have have no clue what was said.

And you did mention only representing the rich. I responded to that too.

Good example of the stupidity in the post I was talking about. This is what I said....

The government is supposed to represent all people, not just those who are rich or well off. After you pay your taxes, what it is used for is up to your elected officials as it is not YOURS anymore.

I guess "or well off" in your world mean "rich." :doh

So don't sit there and throw cheap shots when I responded on topic

You have yet to respond to the topic. You think you have, but you're not even close.

 

[Henrin]

Re: This is it.

Just because I don't want you killing your own young doesn't mean it's my ****ing job to provide for them.

 

[Henrin]

Re: This is it.

A government that lets children starve is not protecting them.

A government that forces people to provide for the needs of others is protecting no one.

 

[Henrin]

Re: This is it.

What's the purpose of a government if not to provide the minimal amount of services necessary to ensure the protection of liberty and the rights of the people?

How can a government claim to protect the rights of the people if it does not do what is necessary to ensure that all children have the basic necessities of life? This is the minimum a government must do to protect the lives of the innocent. How could a society prioritize expenditures of tax dollars for other purposes while this need is unmet?

Since when is needs synonymous with rights? Rights are based on body sovereignty, not if you have enough food to eat or something.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

A government that forces people to provide for the needs of others is protecting no one.

Not so. The government has an obligation to secure the rights of its people, which entails securing the right to life for innocent children.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: This is it.

Since when is needs synonymous with rights? Rights are based on body sovereignty, not if you have enough food to eat or something.

Rights come with accompanying obligations.