Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Movement to normalize perversion continues >

Movement to normalize perversion continues

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Movement to normalize perversion continues

Old 07-14-2015, 12:40 PM
  #71  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 13,187
Default

Top, I know you were not infering that I didn't know what the word means, probaly should have omitted the first sentence of my post.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 12:54 PM
  #72  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

I don't mind being illegitimate. I hope though, that you guys will recall that my mother had no choice in what happened. And that I'm here because she refused to have me killed before I was born.
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 12:55 PM
  #73  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I'm not sure I understand where you're going with the above. Where does this occur and to which incident(s) are you referring?

In the first emboldened statement, you make it sound like both decisions are made for exactly the same reason(s) and are irrevocably linked and intertwined. If that is so, then couldn't you also ask the question in reverse (using your above format): What about the morality of taking away sustenance for the child because the parents are low class immorality and then outlawing abortion?

Your 2nd emboldened statement from above quote is even more curious. To wit "What about the morality of sentencing an unborn child to a life of destitution." I fail to see exactly how an unborn child (who is obviously not aborted) is "sentenced" to a "life of destitution."

Could you explain how you arrive at such a negative conclusion? What study do you base this on? Or even just some reasonable inference from some personal experience? So far, Ranger77 seems to have refuted your assertion with at least his own personal experience. I would guess that many others could also. At minimum, with such anecdotal personal experiences contrary to your theory or formula (I like assertion better though), it would seem that your assertion is not always accurate and would therefore need further study, or in your case, documentation, etc.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
waddler is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 02:05 PM
  #74  
Nontypical Buck
 
AF Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Iowa (Heartland USA)
Posts: 3,249
Default

"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."

Really? The man and woman who created the child aren't responsible for the consequences? It is common knowledge that intercourse between a man and woman is the only way to create another human life form and is a common result thereof.
AF Hunter is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 02:24 PM
  #75  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by AF Hunter View Post
"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."

Really? The man and woman who created the child aren't responsible for the consequences? It is common knowledge that intercourse between a man and woman is the only way to create another human life form and is a common result thereof.
How many irresponsible people have you converted lately?

When you interject yourself into the parents' decision making and preclude their legal desire to terminate a pregnancy, you have then assumed responsibility. All the talk about the irresponsibility of others is no longer relevant. You absolved them of responsibility by taking over their lives.

This is even more evident when getting the "blood from the turnip" proves fruitless. All you have left is "Feel Good" and a lighter hip.
waddler is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 05:36 PM
  #76  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 13,187
Default

Horse hockey! When people have sex that results in a child, they assumed the responsibility to care for the child. If they don't want to do that, simple solution, do not have sex!
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 06:24 PM
  #77  
Nontypical Buck
 
AF Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Iowa (Heartland USA)
Posts: 3,249
Default

C'mon Old Timr, you want waddler to say people need to be responsible for their own actions? You know the liberal stance is don't own up when you can blame others. Although in a way he admitted that abortions are only there for irresponsible people.

Last edited by AF Hunter; 07-14-2015 at 06:26 PM.
AF Hunter is offline  
Old 07-14-2015, 10:44 PM
  #78  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,493
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  
Old 07-15-2015, 04:19 AM
  #79  
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: idaho
Posts: 2,773
Default

locking the parents up is silly . just another bill for us to pay for. that said , forced sterilizing seems like a good compromise.
that way the irresponsible can continue to fornicate to thier hearts delight and we no longer have to raise thier unwanted children for them.plus abortion rates would drop dramatically.
kidoggy is offline  
Old 07-15-2015, 04:20 AM
  #80  
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: idaho
Posts: 2,773
Default

locking the parents up is silly . just another bill for us to pay for. that said , forced sterilizing seems like a good compromise.
that way the irresponsible can continue to fornicate to thier hearts delight and we no longer have to raise thier unwanted children for them.plus abortion rates would drop dramatically.and there would no longer be any reason to support the irresponsible parents when there is no child involved.
kidoggy is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.