Old 07-14-2015, 11:44 PM
  #78  
CalHunter
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,559
Default

The below quote does explain more of what you're trying to say but I still see some issues with the reasoning (see below in blue ink).

Originally Posted by waddler View Post
I will try to answer.

I understand personally about bootstrapping, and find nothing wrong with just providing opportunity. My only contention about abortion is that it is personal and the State should not be involved. I hardly see how that labels me a "Liberal", actually it was a "conservative" virtue in the Goldwater era, on up until the advent of the Reagan Admin., and the march of the Neo Cons. Enough of that.
I don't remember saying that your position makes you a liberal (at least not in your quote of my post) so assume you're referring to someone else or you're making some kind of Freudian statement. I agree that the state should not be involved in funding abortions, advertising or "counseling" for them.

Now as to the welfare funding, I prefer a working solution, where any man can be given a responsible job, even if it is a Government Work Program like the CCC was. But of course that is Socialism. Is it better to just give the money and encourage vagrancy? Our biggest problems with the lower class demographic, resides to a large extent in the big city ghetto. There, a person can make more money selling narcotics, primarily to middle and upper class suburbanites. The war on Drugs so highly touted by the Right, has failed as miserably as their Prohibition of Alcohol.
I think many citizens would prefer some kind of work be done for assistance money although it's not possible in every case. If your assertion that government work programs like CCC are socialism is taken at face value, then it would seem a lot of government jobs could arguably be listed under the same socialist description.

I don't know for a fact that a large extent or part of the lower class lives in ghettos but don't know that it's not true either. This is kind of a generalization though in that many people on the lower fiscal rungs of society don't live in ghettos, sell drugs or engage in other types of criminal activity.

As for a war on drugs failing miserably, that's one of those areas that are basically a catch-22 type situation. Whether we have a war on drugs or not, make drugs illegal or not and teach people why drugs are bad for you or not, a certain amount of people are going to use drugs and all of us are going to suffer the consequences.

The people who oppose drugs being illegal and/or the war on drugs (actually just more political hype about doing our jobs) tend to look at the situation 1-dimensionally. Something along the lines of if drugs were legal, a lot of otherwise good people wouldn't be locked up as criminals and their lives ruined, etc., etc., etc. Drugs are victimless crimes, blah, blah, blah.

Such views are pretty myopic at best. They ignore several facts and a good deal of reality. When criminals make methamphetamine (AKA Crank), they contaminate property, water sources and everything they use with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Anybody who has ever dealt with a crankster knows their mind is not right and they are going to steal and/or commit violence to get their next fix. Often their families, friends and loved ones are the victims, not to mention their own lost potential.

Many of these illegal drugs have their own specific issues and problems. Making them legal isn't going to eliminate crime and violence and really isn't in our society's best interests. I know you haven't argued all of this information but your above statement about the failed war on drugs didn't mention this side of the coin either.

My bone of contention with the far right, is that on one hand they want to increase our population by 400,000 or so/year. Most of these children will belong to economically challenged people. Note I did not say family, because in many instances there is not one. And after forcing the addition of children into these dire circumstances, They want to restrict or eliminate the funding to the programs that support these waifs.
I don't know if 400K a year is a correct # or not but the issue remains the same. In your above statement, you state that most of these children will be economically challenged in "dire circumstances" if they aren't aborted.

Have you actually considered what you're saying? Seriously?? Because a child would be born into a poor family, they should be aborted. Especially since the "far right" wants to restrict or eliminate funding for poor people. So only rich or at least middle class people should have children? Is there a financial level where people make enough money and should NOT be allowed to have an abortion? Your argument is absurd and is almost on a satirical level of Swift's Modest Proposal. But you don't sound like you're trying for satire. You sound genuinely exasperated by this.

Outlawing abortion is Government sticking its nose further into the personal lives of Americans, a place they should not be. However, if abortion is to be limited or outlawed, then the people responsible for bringing that about are responsible for the children that result from their actions.
So people who oppose abortion should be responsible for children who parents decided not to abort and those children's parents should not be responsible for their own kids?

There is an old Chinese custom that says if you save a man's life you will be forever responsible for his actions. If these children are born and raised in the drug culture laden ghettos, then the responsibility for them becoming thugs and irresponsible citizens must be shared by those responsible for their existence.
I believe the Chinese execute drug dealers, etc. Are you okay with that Chinese custom also?

When a child is saved from abortion, the "saviors" have thru their actions assumed a special responsibility to see that child has an equal chance to the American Freedoms. Including a safe secure habitation, warm clean clothing,food , medicine, health care, and a high school education free from danger That takes TAXES, and these monies can only come from "them what's got", so quit complaining when your taxes go up to cover the Welfare needed to provide for your "foster" children.
When a child is "saved" from abortion (this syntax is poorly expressed), the "saviors" have saved a life. The child's parents were grown up enough to conceive the child and should be responsible enough to care for their child. If you're going to place the child's welfare on society as a burden instead of requiring its' parents to care for the child, then wouldn't your reasoning also require society to simply lock up the parents and prevent them from having any more children? It's obviously an equally absurd idea but this absurd line of reasoning seems to be the one you're advocating.
CalHunter is offline