Outlawing all abortions
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Of course stuff can be done privately. I'm not arguing that it can't. Private help can also discriminate against giving help based on race, sexuality, religion, gender etc. Again, I'm not saying churche don't help people or the boyscouts don't. But I do firmly and strongly believe their should exist a guaranteed safety net in our governmental construct that ensures help for everyone. Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Oh private charities will take care of the problem" is just obtuse.
It is why I call it progeny. There can be no argument that the result is not the progeny of humans, unless you ignore the science involved. It matters not what stage of development it is in, it is what it is.
I think it is unnecessarily obtuse to promote a safety net then get mad when somebody works to keep it as a safety net rather than the sole provider.
Supplementing what others already do is a safety net. Promoting expanding it beyond that is what they object to, not the existence of the safety net.
The assumption is if they do not support wholeheartedly every government program that gives money to children then they somehow devalue the life is the very definition of "obtuse", it ignores any and all things that others may do to help, then only gives value to the help that comes from the government.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Perhaps now it is the most common use of the word. But it is not the only definition. Nor has it always been the most common use. Or did people used to say "that woman is pregnant with fetus"???
Socrtease
Verified User
I agree completely that it should be ONLY a saftey net but when it only catches a percentage of the people that NEED it, its not really all that safe.
Socrtease
Verified User
No cause that would be redundent.Perhaps now it is the most common use of the word. But it is not the only definition. Nor has it always been the most common use. Or did people used to say "that woman is pregnant with fetus"???
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
QFT
Oh. Is that the going excuse the apologists are using? Bush supports medical coverage for children half heartedly as opposed to whole heartedly?
And as for Bush supporters devaluing life: that ship set sail in March of 2003 when the casualties of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq were dismissed and casually brushed off as they kept bring up the fact that Saddam was captured. Bush nor do his supporters give a flying fvck about Iraqis or anyone else who can't make them money or vote for them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
BTW - what's your suggestion for taking on uninsured children throughout the entire US?
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wow... you managed to twist this topic into somehow being related to Iraq???
Can we equally go back and say that ship has also sailed for liberals since Clinton clearly did not give a fuck about those in Rwanda? Or all those starving Iraqi children?
I prefer block grants to the states for programs that they would work out for themselves, if the Federal government would get involved at all. What is your plan? Whatever gives more money is the only way to go? Just repeating that Rightwingers don't care because they don't adopt (blatantly false)?
Actively causing the death of Iraqi's and destabilization of the region is not the same as inaction. They both had deadly consequences and were wrong imo, but Bush initiated and is the root cause of Iraqi's troubles today. Clinton didn't start the Rwandan genocide.
It is not inaction to actively participate in the starvation with sanctions, nor is it inaction to bomb places in Iraq because they shoot at the fighters going over them.
I thought the democrats had a fine plan. they wanted to expand on the plan that's already there.
I prefer block grants to the states for programs that they would work out for themselves, if the Federal government would get involved at all.
That's fundamentally what SCHIP is NOW. Its a state run program, with federal matching grants. But, you're still taking Bush's side on this?
I thought that the expansion went too far and began to reach into groups that didn't "need" the safety net any longer.
But, as I said, if it is a government program and it can be given more money then your "evidence" that rightwingers don't care is that they don't support that expansion.
That is weak evidence indeed.
In other words, your only evidence is that they don't think exactly like you and believe that the government should be the sole provider. Therefore they "don't care". That, my friend, is rubbish.
I took no "side", until the post after this. I think the expansion was too large for no reason other than to be able to say, "Look! They don't care!" So they could use it during the campaign.
Bigger spending doesn't mean more "compassionate", the measure of compassion is not the number of people we can get into welfare.