I oppose abortion, and any woman interested to have it is free to have it with whoever agrees to it, but the government has no right to take my money and use it to fund abortions. — Agustino

So you don't think that abortion should be illegal, or that it's not killing a being with a soul or whatever?

So you don't think that abortion should be illegal — praxis

At minimum no one should be forced to pay for it or perform it.

or that it's not killing a being with a soul or whatever? — praxis

It is killing a being with a soul.

Are you opposed to government subsidized healthcare for those less fortunate?

Are you opposed to government subsidized healthcare for those less fortunate? — creativesoul

Depends what "healthcare" means. Abortion isn't healthcare, unless the woman's life is threatened.

Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare?

Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare? — creativesoul

Define healthcare.

Use your definition. Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare?

There's something to be said about folk who wield power over others that they do not value and/or care about.

I find it common for those who oppose abortion to also oppose public assistance for those in less fortunate socio-economic circumstances.

If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy, and refusing to provide public assistance for those women, many many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons(including the quality of life that they want their child to have).

So, if those opposed are placing the unborn child's interests into the forefront as the reason for opposing abortion, and deny public assistance(what's necessary to ensure the child has the best life possible), then they are - in essence - creating a situation which is not in the child's best interest.

Where's the rational moral standard in all this?

I think it's a fact that all are free to choose, rather you might mean that their freedom to choose should be protected. — Agustino

These are not mutually exclusive. Is your point that we need not protect freedom of choice where possible? That is, is it your view that while all are free to choose, some are also free to coerce?

coercing me is taken to be your freedom. — Agustino

I'm not pretending that the injunction leads to simple solutions. But such difficulties do not make the injunction wrong.

Thanks for introducing abortion; it guarantees that this thread will get over the 100 pages.

X-)

As long as all our priorities are in order...

How do you feel about paying for some of the results of unwanted pregnancies that are not aborted, such as welfare programs, correctional facilities, and other costs to society associated with cycles of poverty?

I don't read the newspapers with regards to the US. My opinion about Trump is based mostly on primary sources alone — Agustino

That explains why you're so uninformed and opinionated. You never quote or refer to any sources whatever. I suspect your 'primary sources' are nothing more than your feelings and projections with no regards for facts. This is why I think that you have actually become unknowingly implanted with Internet memes ('Lying Hillary'), which you repeat ad nauseam with no justification or reference. You've become a bot ;-)

There's something to be said about folk who wield power over others that they do not value and/or care about. — creativesoul

Yeah, kinda like you wielding power over the unborn child that will be cut out of a vagina like goop in a potpie.

I find it common for those who oppose abortion to also oppose public assistance for those in less fortunate socio-economic circumstances. — creativesoul

Common among whom, exactly?

If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy — creativesoul

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then that woman should not be having unprotected sex, sex that she, and her partner, knows comes with the risk of conception. Drink twelve beers at the bar, go out driving, crash into someone else, kill them, and you have something called manslaughter. Fuck your buddy, get pregnant, and in this bizarre, modern world such a woman is rewarded with a get-out-of-jail-free-card paid for by her fellow citizens. If murdering an unborn child was practically, and morally, equivalent to funding infrastructure, police and firefighters, etc. then abortion wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is.

and refusing to provide public assistance for those women — creativesoul

Perhaps because the state should hold no responsibility over funding and "fixing" its citizens' mistakes unless otherwise dire.

many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons — creativesoul

Yes, yes, these poor, poor women who have enough money to either have health insurance or to pay out of pocket for an abortion but not enough money to get proper birth control in the first place. Please, just give me a break with this tired rhetoric.

including the quality of life that they want their child to have). — creativesoul

I'm surprised you've stuck with this as most loons who defend abortion have recently fought tooth and nail (lol...) in trying to argue that the "child" that is murdered in an abortion isn't actually a child, nor is it human, being only human once it's born. That sentiment is already shocking, disturbing, and sick, but to see you deny that and seemingly confirm the humanness of the unborn child to be murdered in the whom as being A-OK is just as shocking, truly.

So, if those opposed are placing the unborn child's interests into the forefront as the reason for opposing abortion, and deny public assistance(what's necessary to ensure the child has the best life possible), then they are - in essence - creating a situation which is not in the child's best interest. — creativesoul

A strawman for any pro-lifer who does support a functioning and efficient state with welfare services.

It's really hilarious that you try and make pro-lifers the monsters by lumping them all in the anti-welfare camp, as if trying to pull the wool over our eyes that you are the one in favor of the murdering of unborn children. Ridiculous.

Where's the rational moral standard in all this? — creativesoul

I've no idea, I'm still waiting on any rational moral standard from you.

The pixel quality of your avatar is frying my brain, man. Meditation is supposed to make things clearer, not blurrier. And I'm even wearing glasses right now! >:O 8-)

Yet another person who wants to tell a woman what to do with her own body...

Amazing.

Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare? — creativesoul

No, not necessarily.

If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy, and refusing to provide public assistance for those women, many many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons(including the quality of life that they want their child to have). — creativesoul

It's not "many many many" who have it out of economic reasons. About 30% according to some statistics I've read. About 2-5% are the rape/incest cases. The rest are for other reasons such as "not ready to have a child" (then why the hell are you having unprotected sex? You're ready for sex but not for a child?!), "child will not allow me to have a career", etc.

Yet another person who wants to tell a woman what to do with her own body... — creativesoul

Well yes if she wants to have that abortion with my money, I think I have full rights to tell her what to do with her body. Also, she shouldn't be able to force a doctor to give her an abortion. That would be to tell the doctor what to do with his medical skills, which is wrong.

Is your point that we need not protect freedom of choice where possible? That is, is it your view that while all are free to choose, some are also free to coerce? — Banno

None are free to coerce.

How do you feel about paying for some of the results of unwanted pregnancies that are not aborted, such as welfare programs, correctional facilities, and other costs to society associated with cycles of poverty? — praxis

Am I responsible for her stupidity? No. She should pay for it. But if she really can't, then I'm not opposed to help her.

That explains why you're so uninformed and opinionated. You never quote or refer to any sources whatever. I suspect your 'primary sources' are nothing more than your feelings and projections with no regards for facts. This is why I think that you have actually become unknowingly implanted with Internet memes ('Lying Hillary'), which you repeat ad nauseam with no justification or reference. You've become a bot ;-) — Wayfarer

:s - I haven't become unknowingly implanted with internet memes - Lying Hillary isn't an internet meme, Donald Trump said it at his rallies. If you stopped reading only the New York Times summary of the rallies, and actually watched them, you may have known this.

But of course, it's easier to give a quick look at secondary sources and then take that for the truth, just because some reporters say it. Do the hard work, and go back to primary sources yourself.

Lying Hillary isn't an internet meme, Donald Trump said it at his rallies. — Agustino

I rest my case.

None are free to coerce. — Agustino

So you agree that we ought protect the freedom to choose?

It is really beyond reason that a spiritual person can consider democracy - the rule of the stupid masses - where rulers are temporary, and not in fact rulers at all, but rather thieves and abusers - as an acceptable system of government. Democracy is a disease, which very likely is close to the root of the loss of spiritual values. Democracy - whatsoever is immoral is the product of democracy. Debauchery is a very democratic affair afterall - it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine a non-democratic man in a night club. — Agustino

Just because the US democratic system doesn't work, doesn't mean democracy doesn't work. It's interesting how you insist on social conservatism and then disparage democracy totally. In my experience (local) democracy is almost the only method to ensure social cooperation at the local level. E.g. that it's not only the liberal "atoms" with their individual rights. But we are individuals and we do live in a society and we're having a hard time reconciling the two at a national level. To me, the abortion issue is ultimately a decision of the woman, because it's her body and her life that is most deeply affected. So if I'm going to write a law on this, I'll make sure the woman cannot be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want to. Ethically, everybody involved should have a good long and hard think about what to do before any decision is made but I can't make that law.

Also, a lot of socialist thinkers have the same critique of liberalism as you do.

Since this is about Trump; from where I'm standing (in the Netherlands) he looks completely ineffectual. He's irritated and annoyed so many people everywhere, he won't be able to get anything done. Inept.

So you agree that we ought protect the freedom to choose? — Banno

Freedom of choice is a fact of human nature. Some freedoms you ought to protect and others you ought to discourage. For example, you ought not to protect the freedom to choose murder. But yes, in general we ought to protect the freedom to choose so long as that freedom to choose doesn't negatively impact others.

Yet another person who wants to tell a woman what to do with her own body...

Amazing. — creativesoul

"Who are you to tell me what I do with my body?"

In my experience (local) democracy is almost the only method to ensure social cooperation at the local level. — Benkei

If I understand you correctly, I agree, but that is not an institutionalised form of democracy, but rather pure cooperation arising naturally between the members of one community.

But we are individuals and we do live in a society and we're having a hard time reconciling the two at a national level. — Benkei

Precisely, democracy fails as a system, it's a bad political system.

So if I'm going to write a law on this, I'll make sure the woman cannot be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want to. — Benkei

I can agree with this, so long as you'll agree not to force any doctors to give her an abortion if they don't want to, nor to force me as the taxpayer to finance her abortion. These things should arise naturally in the community. If her community doesn't approve of abortions, such that she cannot find a doctor willing to perform it, then she should take this into consideration in her behavior. The government should not force people to perform these services.

To me, the abortion issue is ultimately a decision of the woman, because it's her body and her life that is most deeply affected. — Benkei

Well I think the baby's life is most deeply affected by her decision, but the problem arises precisely because the baby is not in a capacity to speak or make decisions that is the problem.

Since this is about Trump; from where I'm standing (in the Netherlands) he looks completely ineffectual. He's irritated and annoyed so many people everywhere, he won't be able to get anything done. Inept. — Benkei

But is being on friendly terms with others what is required to get things done? I dare say that at the highest levels of politics, most people there can be manipulated based on their own selfish desires and greed, such that even if they don't like you, you can get them to do what you want so long as you dangle the carrot.

I will now have a nightmare tonight because of this picture >:O

Judging a woman's appearance? You sexist bigot!