• 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!

What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a lot

Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

It's exactly the same thing. Your denial changes nothing.

Tell me: if you have a problem with your taxes, are there tax lawyers you can turn to?

Can you work it out in court?

You're braying and making no sense.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Tell me: if you have a problem with your taxes, are there tax lawyers you can turn to?

Can you work it out in court?

You're braying and making no sense.

You mean to make sure that the process I was forced to take part in went correctly? :lamo
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

She's an idiot and a socialist, but I repeat myself.

Conflating the distinct issues of opposing homicide or not and supporting coerced state charity or not remains the purview of only ****tards.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Why does it matter if the government facilitated the earning of my property?

It suggests you owe it (us) something in return. The government will arrest someone who steals from you, will build highways that enable you to get to work or your product to market, water to irrigate your crops, a postal service, etc. It also helps people who fail to navigate the system as well as you might (the "takers" in Ayn Rand's fascistic dualist world), provides for defense of the nation, etc. That's the social contract that is the basis of modern government. You can reject that as theft, but that argument is more or less over. But maybe we are talking past one another. I assume that we both believe in government, just differ on its role.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

I was asleep in the back of the classroom the day they taught math. It wasn't until I took a class in numbers theory in college that math began to click in my brain. I will forever credit that class for enabling me to make through statistics class in grad school. A mathematician I am not and never will be.

Somewhere out there there are skilled mathematicians who can and probably have determined the fairly accurate dollar amount required of federal and state governments to raise all unadopted children from birth to 23 (age of completion of college) who would in essence be wards of the state over a 25 year period from the day all abortions became illegal in the US. There would be many variables involved in determining a reasonable number of unadopted children and children adopted at various ages until legal emancipation.

Depending on the source it appears that raising one children from birth through college costs somewhere in the neighborhood of one million dollars. I cannot fathom the amount of money it would cost to raise all un-adopted or partially (late) adopted children in the US over a 25 year period. Of course if all adoptions became illegal the costs to federal and national governments would be never ending. I picked 25 years arbitrarily, to give some sense of time and commitment.

While some people do step up and adopt or commit to helping support children without parents it is to my knowledge not a common practice. Most Americans do not do it, nor can they afford to. Many more, however, are adamant about the end of abortion for all Americans regardless of the circumstances present and future.

Someone sent me the article linked below. I will confess to the board and the world that I am now in love with a nun, Sister Joan Chittister. Sister is a bright lady, an author of 46 books, who has a Phd from Penn State.

Here's what she has to say on the subject:



Much more information from this enlightened lady here.

[/U]

She has highlighted the difference between being prolife and profetus.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

It suggests you owe it (us) something in return. The government will arrest someone who steals from you, will build highways that enable you to get to work or your product to market, water to irrigate your crops, a postal service, etc. It also helps people who fail to navigate the system as well as you might (the "takers" in Ayn Rand's fascistic dualist world), provides for defense of the nation, etc. That's the social contract that is the basis of modern government. You can reject that as theft, but that argument is more or less over. But maybe we are talking past one another. I assume that we both believe in government, just differ on its role.

I never asked for anything from the state, so why would I have an obligation to pay for anything they provide?
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

I never asked for anything from the state, so why would I have an obligation to pay for anything they provide?

There's your dilemma: do we rebate your gas taxes if you promise not to use freeways? Do you put out your own house fire? Are you asked for payment at the scene when the ambulance attendants arrive to pick you up? How would things work if you were in charge?

Years ago a libertarian friend showed me the party platform. (This was the 1970s.) Ironically, the society envisaged in the platform reminded me of what I had been told about Marx in school: that he predicted that the state would wither away under communism. Seemed like an Utopian vision.

Simply put, you may not have asked, but we as a society collectively decided to provide a level of service for the common good and convenience. I realize that words that begin with "co" might be toxic to libertarians, but that is the shape of the world that has been more or less decided by majority rule, with all its faults. I may have this wrong, but do you reject that formula for social organization?
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

There's your dilemma: do we rebate your gas taxes if you promise not to use freeways? Do you put out your own house fire? Are you asked for payment at the scene when the ambulance attendants arrive to pick you up? How would things work if you were in charge?

Years ago a libertarian friend showed me the party platform. (This was the 1970s.) Ironically, the society envisaged in the platform reminded me of what I had been told about Marx in school: that he predicted that the state would wither away under communism. Seemed like an Utopian vision.

Simply put, you may not have asked, but we as a society collectively decided to provide a level of service for the common good and convenience. I realize that words that begin with "co" might be toxic to libertarians, but that is the shape of the world that has been more or less decided by majority rule, with all its faults. I may have this wrong, but do you reject that formula for social organization?

If someone provides me a service without my permission I see no reason why I have an obligation to pay them. If some kid decided to mow your lawn without your permission would you be obligated to pay them for the service they provided?

And collectively deciding on something would mean that I was involved in the decision making, which of course I was not.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Another question: If it is a sin to steal then how it is not a sin to use the state to takes peoples property so they help others? The bible didn't say you shall not steal except if you want to help others, but that you shall not steal.

Ah. So you don't know what the word "steal" means. Please don't equivocate terms. Makes your argument dishonest and pointless.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

You sure are clear in your posts. Care to provide that definition or what? Hint: There is a legal and common usage definition. It should be obvious which definition I'm using here.

Which is why you've lost, here. You don't understand context.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Ah. So you don't know what the word "steal" means. Please don't equivocate terms. Makes your argument dishonest and pointless.

google said:
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Take note of the word or in that definition.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

It's exactly what they do. They consider their forced agreement binding and so does the government. You have no case here, you know.

But Henrin... you KNOW that you have the right to refuse to abide by government laws. Just accept the consequences and move on. No force at all. That's how life works, Henrin. Choices.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Take note of the word or in that definition.

Take note of the words "legal right". You lose.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Which is why you've lost, here. You don't understand context.

Not every informative post you made there. You're actually getting pretty close to a fallacy there with that post.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Take note of the words "legal right". You lose.

:lamo Why do people use the word or in sentences, Captain? Should I provide you the definition of the word or now?
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Not every informative post you made there. You're actually getting pretty close to a fallacy there with that post.

No, my post was on target. You try to alter context so that words and concepts fit your narrow viewpoints. I like pointing that out.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

No, my post was on target. You try to alter context so that words and concepts fit your narrow viewpoints. I like pointing that out.

The word theft in common usage fits my usage as it is. :shrug: How about you explain yourself for once? You know, like maybe tell me how I'm narrowing it down to fit my viewpoints. I'm going to guess that if you refuse to do it in your next post that you're purposely avoiding explaining yourself and end the discussion.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

:lamo Why do people use the word or in sentences, Captain? Should I provide you the definition of the word or now?

Context, Henrin. Just because you want a word to mean something, doesn't mean it does. Here are some examples:

abortion does not mean murder
fetus does not mean parasite
taxes do not mean theft

Try to use words correctly and you won't come across as dishonest and illogical as you do.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Context, Henrin. Just because you want a word to mean something, doesn't mean it does. Here are some examples:

abortion does not mean murder
fetus does not mean parasite
taxes do not mean theft

Try to use words correctly and you won't come across as dishonest and illogical as you do.

Sigh. What does the word or mean, captain? Your prior post completely ignored it was there, so go ahead and tell me what it means.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

The word theft in common usage fits my usage as it is. :shrug: How about you explain yourself for once. You know, like maybe tell me how I'm narrowing it down to fit my viewpoints? I'm going to guess that if you refuse to do it in your next post that you're purposely avoiding explaining yourself and end the discussion.

What your usage is happens to be irrelevant as to what the term means. That's why your positions are so easy to take apart. YOU don't get to decide the meaning of a word used in a certain context just because you don't like it. As far as explaining myself, I've done so, clearly. You and I both know you are never going to admit that you are being dishonest, which is exactly what you are doing. So I'll just keep doing what I always do. Demonstrating just how idiotic, dishonest, and illogical what you say, is.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

Sigh. What does the word or mean, captain? Your prior post completely ignored it was there, so go ahead and tell me what it means.

You posted the definition. I commented on how you ignored part of the definition that you found inconvenient. I know you don't like that. Too bad.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

What your usage is happens to be irrelevant as to what the term means. That's why your positions are so easy to take apart. YOU don't get to decide the meaning of a word used in a certain context just because you don't like it. As far as explaining myself, I've done so, clearly. You and I both know you are never going to admit that you are being dishonest, which is exactly what you are doing. So I'll just keep doing what I always do. Demonstrating just how idiotic, dishonest, and illogical what you say, is.

You know, talking about me instead of my argument is a fallacy. You commit this fallacy constantly and I'm completely sick of it.

What you did was ignore the word or and only focused on the legal definition as if the common usage and the legal definition are the same. If they were the same the definition wouldn't have separated the two as there would be no point in it, but since there is in fact a difference between the two they did. This is because common usage means to take something without consent, while the legal definition is a bit more focused on individual cases. The common usage doesn't make an exception for taxes and it is dishonest and wrong of you to suggest it does.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

You posted the definition. I commented on how you ignored part of the definition that you found inconvenient. I know you don't like that. Too bad.

I didn't ignore it. The first part of the defination is relevant to my position, while the second is relevant to yours. Again, the word or is separating the two cases it is used, which is why I told you to take note of the word. I also knew full well you would ignore it and of course you did.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

You know, talking about me instead of my argument is a fallacy. You commit this fallacy constantly and I'm completely sick of it.

I'm uninterested in what you are "sick" of. YOU post really dumb things and when this is pointed out to you, you ignore facts and logic and keep posting really dumb things. If you don't want that pointed out, stop posting dumb things.

What you did was ignore the word or and only focused on the legal definition as if the common usage and the legal definition are the same. If they were the same the definition wouldn't have separated the two as there would be no point in it, but since there is in fact a difference between the two they did. This is because common usage means to take something without consent, while the legal definition is a bit more focused on individual cases. The common usage doesn't make an exception for taxes and it is dishonest and wrong of you to suggest it does.

The common usage of the term is IRRELEVANT IN CONTEXT. We are discussing taxes. Since that is what we are discussing, NOT using the term in that context is dishonest and lacks logic. You make this error ALL THE TIME and then get mad when I point it out. Stop making the error and things will go much better for you.
 
Re: What this Catholic nun has to say about being truly pro-life is going to upset a

I didn't ignore it. The first part of the defination is relevant to my position, while the second is relevant to yours. Again, the word or is separating the two cases it is used, which is why I told you to take note of the word. I also knew full well you would ignore it and of course you did.

The context of the discussion is relative to MY position, not yours. That's why your ignoring of that part of the definition is dishonest and illogical. It's like you saying that killing is murder, but ignoring that killing is NOT defined as murder in a battle between two armies when that is what we are discussing. Same kind of dishonesty.
 
Back
Top Bottom