I'm registered GOP and usually vote GOP, but in reality I am a libertarian and have voted dem in the past.
when i hear someone say "fiscal conservative" i don't think of balanced budgets - i think of how we spend our money... and how much control the govn't has over our money. I prefer to make my own choices about charity and not have the govn't decide who/how to give my money to those in need, esp when their programs are full of abuse. (don't tell me they aren't, i lived/worked in inner city and saw it first hand)
i believe in govn't having less of a role in my life- not more.
i'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, pro legal pot... so i certainly don't fit into the typical GOP role - but b/c most of what the GOP presents is what effects me the most (my wallet) i generally vote GOP. When a 3rd party has a chance, i'll give my vote there likely.
I don't understand this viewpoint. So you view social programs as charity?
semantics, but yes... I believe charities do a much better job servicing those in need vs. govn't programs.
I think the moral of the story is that we all believe different things based on different reasons. We don't all have to believe the same thing. Maybe you think my reasoning is faulty, but I think your reason results in faulty beliefs. And hopefully we can agree to disagree. I learned more about myself today, so thank you all for helping me pass my day so quickly. I can't say that I have changed my stance, but I am sure none of you would say that. It's been fun!
I am trying to come up with a way to explain it better. If only babies that are not reilant on the mother should have rights. Then why should we allow and promote mothers wanting to have babies via IVF, those babies wouldn't survive ever if they didn't have someone besides the mother caring for them. They are, or at least they start out, being reliant on someone else. Maybe that cleared it up, I don't know.
That is a big jump. I may not think fetus should have rights but that doesn't mean I think they should cease to exist. No matter how they are conceived.
Look let's say we granted a fetus rights. And a pregnant woman discovers she has cancer requiring chemotherapy. Chemotherapy that may harm the fetus. Whose rights are honored and who makes that decision? A judge? The doctor?
Or let's say a pregnant woman is in a car accident. The baby can be saved by emergency c section, but then the mom wouldn't make it. Or the mother could be saved with an emergency operation but then the baby would die. Again, whose rights win out? And who decides? See the issue with granting a fetus rights?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using proboards
From Catholics schooling, I remember a similar situation. The medical procedure to save the life of the mother would not be considered abortion or immoral. However, could someone speak for the rights of the baby? Could a father have a say?
With regards to your thing about insurance - the whole point of it is that everyone is paying for everyone and everything in order to keep costs down. I realize our insurance system is crappy, but that is the underlying point of insurance. Also, generally people buy it but hope not to use it - you don't plan on getting in a car accident, right? But you get car insurance. This is why any type of insurance system is a stupid way to deal with health care, but that's another discussion.
To bring it back to your point, should testicular cancer treatment not be covered in standard insurance because women (50% of the population) won't get it, so why should they pay? Then men can get up in arms about uterine or cervical cancer, etc. It's a very selfish way of looking at the world.
Why is any type of insurance a bad way to deal with health care? What is an alternative? Trying to learn, not argue.
I think the moral of the story is that we all believe different things based on different reasons. We don't all have to believe the same thing. Maybe you think my reasoning is faulty, but I think your reason results in faulty beliefs. And hopefully we can agree to disagree. I learned more about myself today, so thank you all for helping me pass my day so quickly. I can't say that I have changed my stance, but I am sure none of you would say that. It's been fun!
The moral of the story is we all believe different things, some of us base them on reality and facts while you base them on what you HOPE might randomly happen in the future (against the policies of the very party you chose to vote) with no recognition of whether your HOPEs contradict each other or not.
Some of us attempt to vote based on actual knowledge of proposed policies vs because they tell us "Good Christians" vote for us.
And please don't call yourself Pro-life. You aren't. You are pro-fetus, anti-mother, anti-baby, anti-human.
The moral of the story is we all believe different things, some of us base them on reality and facts while you base them on what you HOPE might randomly happen in the future (against the policies of the very party you chose to vote) with no recognition of whether your HOPEs contradict each other or not.
Some of us attempt to vote based on actual knowledge of proposed policies vs because they tell us "Good Christians" vote for us.
And please don't call yourself Pro-life. You aren't. You are pro-fetus, anti-mother, anti-baby, anti-human.
I trend more to the conservative side of life and am appalled at the bad rap that Christianity is getting. I am not a fan of either major candidate - in any of their platforms. They're both fiscally screwy and their personal skills all need work.
Post by bronxgirl on Sept 18, 2012 21:31:04 GMT -5
This is the first time I have read a 20 page post in 1 sitting. I would like to offer a virtual gold medal to everyone who had the stamina and wherwithall to address soozy. oh my.
With regards to your thing about insurance - the whole point of it is that everyone is paying for everyone and everything in order to keep costs down. I realize our insurance system is crappy, but that is the underlying point of insurance. Also, generally people buy it but hope not to use it - you don't plan on getting in a car accident, right? But you get car insurance. This is why any type of insurance system is a stupid way to deal with health care, but that's another discussion.
To bring it back to your point, should testicular cancer treatment not be covered in standard insurance because women (50% of the population) won't get it, so why should they pay? Then men can get up in arms about uterine or cervical cancer, etc. It's a very selfish way of looking at the world.
Why is any type of insurance a bad way to deal with health care? What is an alternative? Trying to learn, not argue.
Don't you pinkos up north have national healthcare? That's an alternative, certainly.
Some will have the ability to step back & chuckle at this.
Poster 1: "Since I was asked for my opinion.... IM(unpopular)O, I disagree with and therefore don't support purple." Poster 2,3,56: "How dare you! You're only anti-purple because of your opinon. That's terrible. Don't try to force your opinon on others!! Your anti-purple opinion is wrong because it is opposite of mine, and I'm super open-minded of all viewpoints (unless they conflict with my own). Therefore, you are wrong and everyone should love purple (and I'm imposing my pro-purple opinion onto you)."
To the OP: Yes, there are several Republicans on MM. Most of us avoid political debates as there are more vocal posters and unforunately, a few resort to personal attacks/sarcasm/race card/Hitler instead of civil discussion. I enjoyed reading different viewpoints but again, became annoyed at the double-standard. It seems ok for MM to be pro-XYZ, resort to mocking another party AND posting pictures mocking another religion. It's now ok to mock someone else's religion?
Post by explorer2001 on Sept 19, 2012 0:48:49 GMT -5
I keep trying to find a way to say this but I can't so I'm going to just rant.
Women are raped. Birth control fails. Women find out carrying to term will kill them due to a medical condition. Women find out that the fetus isn't viable. Women find out that their partner is abusive after they are pregnant The legal system currently sets a trap with parental rights to the bio-father even if he is an abuser or rapist that forces the woman and any potential child to have to deal with that for the rest of their life. Women, and only women, get pregnant and have to face these possibilities happening with their bodies.
If anyone really wants to debate with me that it is acceptable to make safe, legal abortions unavailable to any woman who for whatever reason is facing a terribly difficult decision, I will debate with you. But you need to know I know women who have lived through each scenario above. I've lived a few myself. I don't understand how anyone who claims to have an ounce of compassion for other human beings can take a choice away from a woman. It effectively says that woman is less than human and of less value than the potential contents of her ute regardless of how it came to be there.
I don't think anyone on any side of this issue would say a woman should be required to carry a tubal pregnancy until it ruptures or carry a tumor in her ute until it kills her because those clumps of cells have more value than the woman's life, physical, emotional, and psychological well being. Further the people who are making the majority of the legal proposals and platforms are rich, old, white men who a) could never be in a position of being pregnant and having to scarifice themself on the altar of their own law and b) are likely to not have real exposure to or understanding of what it is like to be abused, poor, a minority, a woman, etc. I'm fairly sure if this were an issue related to men's reproductive health and rights it would be guaranteed to be covered by their medical care without conidtions or religious arguements about whether or not it was right like we have seen regarding birth control. Oh wait that's right their viagara is covered...
Why is any type of insurance a bad way to deal with health care? What is an alternative? Trying to learn, not argue.
Don't you pinkos up north have national healthcare? That's an alternative, certainly.
Right , I guess a bit of a brain fart. I was considering the government as one big insirance company. Like medicare. But duh, it doesnt really work that way.
Some will have the ability to step back & chuckle at this.
Poster 1: "Since I was asked for my opinion.... IM(unpopular)O, I disagree with and therefore don't support purple." Poster 2,3,56: "How dare you! You're only anti-purple because of your opinon. That's terrible. Don't try to force your opinon on others!! Your anti-purple opinion is wrong because it is opposite of mine, and I'm super open-minded of all viewpoints (unless they conflict with my own). Therefore, you are wrong and everyone should love purple (and I'm imposing my pro-purple opinion onto you)."
To the OP: Yes, there are several Republicans on MM. Most of us avoid political debates as there are more vocal posters and unforunately, a few resort to personal attacks/sarcasm/race card/Hitler instead of civil discussion. I enjoyed reading different viewpoints but again, became annoyed at the double-standard. It seems ok for MM to be pro-XYZ, resort to mocking another party AND posting pictures mocking another religion. It's now ok to mock someone else's religion?
Amen to that. And yeah, I know that most of us don't normally care to discuss things on here. Most of the people on here disagree with me, and that is fine. I guess I will know for next time.
A few thoughts/musings: Poster 1: "Since I was asked for my opinion.... IM(unpopular)O, I disagree with and therefore don't support purple." Poster 2,3,56: "How dare you! You're only anti-purple because of your opinion. That's terrible. Don't try to force your opinion on others!! Your anti-purple opinion is wrong because it is opposite of mine, and I'm super open-minded of all viewpoints (unless they conflict with my own). Therefore, you are wrong and everyone should love purple (and I'm imposing my pro-purple opinion onto you)."
I think what you are missing here, is that the intent of (most) of the posters 2,3,56,etc. is not to tell Soozy that her opinion is wrong, they are trying to get her to really examine the basis for her opinion, the reasons behind it, because most of them (and admittedly myself) have a hard time seeing the logic behind those reasons.