• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

Kandahar said:
I find it funny that you adopt this attitude less than one page after you were so sanctimoniously horrified that Ginsburg would even mention trying to reduce the birth rate among the poor. You're funny. :lol:
Click to expand...

I was horrified? Please quote me. I don't recall being horrified. Thank you.
 
Kandahar said:
Mpg, meet apdst! It's "not his problem." If people are stupid enough to be born in the wrong country or to the wrong parents, then they deserve to die. ;)
Click to expand...

Trillions of dollars in aid have been pumped into Africa and things have only gotten worse. Ultimately, helping them and forcing them to become dependent on our aid money is actually hurting them.
 
apdst said:
Trillions of dollars in aid have been pumped into Africa and things have only gotten worse. Ultimately, helping them and forcing them to become dependent on our aid money is actually hurting them.
Click to expand...

But you weren't making an economic argument against foreign aid. You were making a not-my-problem argument. Hence you are a perfect example of what disneydude was talking about in post #8.
 
apdst said:
No, tahts not what I did. Read it again.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Lots of former Einsatzgruppen members changed their mind about the Holocuast since WW2, also.
Click to expand...

This is the last time I'm going to throw your own words back in your face, since your M.O. is to just flatly deny you ever said things that you clearly did. If you can't debate like a grown-up, I'm not going to bother. It's your choice. :2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
But you weren't making an economic argument against foreign aid. You were making a not-my-problem argument.
Click to expand...

I was doing both, actually. Let me rephrase: It's not my problem, so my taxes shouldn't be poured down a bottomless money hole, when obviously the practice had a negative effect on the plight of the Africans. Feel better?
 
Kandahar said:
This is the last time I'm going to throw your own words back in your face, since your M.O. is to just flatly deny you ever said things that you clearly did. If you can't debate like a grown-up, I'm not going to bother. It's your choice. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Don't be a baby. That's not what I said and you damn well know it. I NEVER made any comparison of ginsburg's comments with the Holocaust.
 
apdst said:
I was doing both, actually. Let me rephrase: It's not my problem, so my taxes shouldn't be poured down a bottomless money hole, when obviously the practice had a negative effect on the plight of the Africans. Feel better?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So just to clarify since I specifically asked about contraception instead of foreign aid in general: Do you believe that A) distributing condoms in Africa doesn't reduce the birth rate, B) it does reduce the birth rate but that doesn't have any positive economic effect, or C) it does have a positive economic effect but you just don't care anyway because it isn't your problem?
 
Kandahar said:
It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to agree with you here. As long as the abortions aren't being forced (that would be very "Hitler"), then I see no problem acknowledging the fact that abortion is a utility in keeping the population of poor down.

I also have no problem with forced sterilization of women who have serious drug addiction that has led to more than 1 malformed child because of their usage.
 
Kandahar said:
If you're against cradle-to-grave socialism, then reducing the birth rate of the poor should be a top priority for you. Who do you think are the main recipients of many social programs?
Click to expand...

Feed a man a fish, and he eats for a day, returning again for another fish.

Teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself.


It's amazing how simple, and honest a concept like that is considered cruel, but creating programs proven to perpetuate poverty are considered "kind".
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
You are completely missing what I am saying or blatantly misconstruing what I am saying...not sure which.

What I am saying is that the pro-life movement is 100% behind protecting the fetus, however as soon as the fetus becomes a child, they are against doing anything to support the child.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You make it sound like us pro-lifers wish to protect a fetus but as soon as the child is born we no longer want them protected? If this is how you see us you are simply wrong.
 
Baralis said:
What are you talking about? You make it sound like us pro-lifers wish to protect a fetus but as soon as the child is born we no longer want them protected? If this is how you see us you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

It is a highly deceitful misrepresentation of the prolife movement on Disney's part. It borders on hyperbole where it doesn't cross over into outright lie.
 
MrVicchio said:
Feed a man a fish, and he eats for a day, returning again for another fish.

Teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself.


It's amazing how simple, and honest a concept like that is considered cruel, but creating programs proven to perpetuate poverty are considered "kind".
Click to expand...

And what do any of your cliches have to do with the fact that social programs do exist, their main beneficiaries are the poor, and fewer poor people means less money spent on these programs that you consider wasteful?
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
What are you talking about? You make it sound like us pro-lifers wish to protect a fetus but as soon as the child is born we no longer want them protected? If this is how you see us you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

jallman said:
It is a highly deceitful misrepresentation of the prolife movement on Disney's part. It borders on hyperbole where it doesn't cross over into outright lie.
Click to expand...

There are certain posters in this thread alone that are a perfect example of what Disney is talking about. I agree with him, with the caveat that it doesn't apply to everyone who opposes abortion.
 
Kandahar said:
And what do any of your stupid cliches have to do with the fact that social programs do exist, their main beneficiaries are the poor, and fewer poor people means less money spent on these programs that you consider wasteful?
Click to expand...

I think that society will adjust itself to swell lower classes when programs are made available to support larger numbers of poor. When these programs are made less available, the poor, out of survival instinct, will attempt other means of getting their daily bread like joining the military, etc.

The poverty problem is magnified by making these programs available.
 
MrVicchio said:
Teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself.
Click to expand...

The problem with that concept in the conservative and capitalist world is time is money so the man (which would be millions) would first have to PAY to learn how to fish. Of course to teach millions, it would first take teachers that need to payed. Since the folks needing the training would not have the money to pay for such a training, only a social program could assist them in that, but wait we can't have that. So they just starve and die.

Good plan :roll:

This is what happens when you try to equate a simple yet pointless saying in the real world.
 
jallman said:
I think that society will adjust itself to swell lower classes when programs are made available to support larger numbers of poor. When these programs are made less available, the poor, out of survival instinct, will attempt other means of getting their daily bread like joining the military, etc.

The poverty problem is magnified by making these programs available.
Click to expand...

And once again, I am not debating the effectiveness of social programs here. But I think we can all agree that fewer poor people having babies means fewer mouths for those social programs to feed? No?
 
Kandahar said:
And once again, I am not debating the effectiveness of social programs here. But I think we can all agree that fewer poor people having babies means fewer mouths for those social programs to feed? No?
Click to expand...

I dunno actually. Granted, I agree that fewer poor people having babies probably leads to less crime in the end (a whole other debate), but I think that available social programs lead to people being made available to utilize those social programs. I think they create the problem they are meant to resolve.

But you are right, that's another topic and I don't want to derail. We are in agreement though that abortion as a mechanism to electively limit birth rate in the low classes cannot be a bad thing.
 
TheNextEra said:
The problem with that concept in the conservative and capitalist world is time is money so the man (which would be millions) would first have to PAY to learn how to fish. Of course to teach millions, it would first take teachers that need to payed. Since the folks needing the training would not have the money to pay for such a training, only a social program could assist them in that, but wait we can't have that. So they just starve and die.

Good plan :roll:

This is what happens when you try to equate a simple yet pointless saying in the real world.
Click to expand...

Except that we have a public school system that is supposed to be doing this from 5 years old to about 18 years old.

The addage is true. Our system is just failing on all fronts.
 
I just want to say that this thread contains within it the epitome of liberal elitism.
 
jallman said:
Except that we have a public school system that is supposed to be doing this from 5 years old to about 18 years old.
Click to expand...

But that is a social program, and MrViccio said all those programs need to go. So how can you teach a man (in this case millions) to fish without any social programs.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I just want to say that this thread contains within it the epitome of liberal elitism.
Click to expand...

So you don't see any benefit to encouraging the poor to have fewer children, in a way that is not coercive and doesn't cost the taxpayers anything?

This kind of **** is exactly why there is a perception that some conservatives stop caring about the kid the moment he comes out of the womb. Yes, it's nothing more than "liberal elitism" to want to live in a society with less crime, a better environment, and a lesser need for government spending...all while helping the poor people in question better themselves financially without coercing them to do anything. :doh
 
TheNextEra said:
But that is a social program, and MrViccio said all those programs need to go. So how can you teach a man (in this case millions) to fish without any social programs.
Click to expand...

1. Give him a fishing pole.

2. Take him to river.

3. Give him book of matches.

4. Leave.

He either learns to fish or he starves.... if you feed him every day, the only thing he will do is get fat.
 
TheNextEra said:
But that is a social program, and MrViccio said all those programs need to go. So how can you teach a man (in this case millions) to fish without any social programs.
Click to expand...

Viccio takes a much more hard-line approach to social programs than I do.

I also think that you are obtusely assigning all social programs to a single category when we both know that Viccio is specifically talking about welfare programs. He obviously has no problem with resources being spent teaching considering the addage he invoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom