DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on May 04, 2011, 07:51:29 PM
-
Democrat Martin Frost Effectively Concedes Palin is Right About The Oil Industry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzve55NwruQ#ws)
-
Generally speaking Obama doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. And oil is just one more topic that he's in way over his head on.
-
Being as I had money invested in an independent oil & gas company (Kelley Oil) for about ten years, I DO know what they are talking about, and in my opinion, it has very little to do with an incentive to drill. Depletion allowances are given AFTER the well is drilled, producing and making a profit. It is based on an estimate of the amount of oil that can be produced. Oil companies do not create many jobs after the well is in place and producing, by the way. Oil production is a capital-intensive industry, that onloy hires a lot of people before the well is in production.
Palin doesn't know diddly about this.
-
Being as I had money invested in an independent oil & gas company (Kelley Oil) for about ten years, I DO know what they are talking about, and in my opinion, it has very little to do with an incentive to drill. Depletion allowances are given AFTER the well is drilled, producing and making a profit. It is based on an estimate of the amount of oil that can be produced. Oil companies do not create many jobs after the well is in place and producing, by the way. Oil production is a capital-intensive industry, that onloy hires a lot of people before the well is in production.
Palin doesn't know diddly about this.
Apparently she knows more about it than Obama.
-
She knows what they tell her to say. She explained NOTHING about the reality of this issue.
Palin is a dingbat.
Somehow, the teensy subsidy that the government pays to PBS is way too much, but 4 billion in subsidies (not deductions, subsidies) for some damn wildcatters is crucial to life itself.
-
She knows what they tell her to say. She explained NOTHING about the reality of this issue.
Palin is a dingbat.
Somehow, the teensy subsidy that the government pays to PBS is way too much, but 4 billion in subsidies (not deductions, subsidies) for some damn wildcatters is crucial to life itself.
Well at least you get the tax allowance is for wildcatters. Obama is painting it as for BIG OIL, thankfully a dem congressman pointed out that that just is not so.
-
An oil depletion allowance is based on the theory that with every year oil is pumped out of a well, there is less oil that can be pumped, and so you should get a deduction for this. The fact is that there is no way to know how much oil can be pumped out of a given well, because oil flows from a distance into the pumping area, and no one knows how much is there or how much you can pump. There are wells in Texas that have been producing for forty years. They can inject water , steam or chemicals or fracking fluids and revive old wells AFTER they have claimed an oil depletion allowance.
If a depletion allowance is bogus and nort allowed for the big producers, why does it make sense for the smaller ones?
Suppose we apply the same principle to income tax, since every year that you live, you have one year less of lifespan, and therefore the government owes you some sort of credit for that. It is a bogus horseshit idea thought up back in the 1930's or earlier. Oil is a gamble, like your life or mining is a gamble. You don't like it, then do not mine ore and do not pump oil.
And we will never get a life depletion allowance.
-
The larger point is that Obama is saying the depletion allowance is for BIG OIl and hasn't been since the 70's.
I have been for a flat tax almost as long.
-
So far as I know, the Flat Tax was not discussed until Steve Forbes ran in 1996 on this as his platform. It was pointed out that Steve Forbes, who owned his own company, could then juggle options and such and pay ZERO tax. Then he opened his mouth and everyone fell asleep.
If we need to raise more revenue for the government, abolishing the oil depletion allowance would accomplish this far more than diddling with NPR or PP, and it would not end oil wildcatting, either.
-
The original income tax was flat . 1% on anything over 3k.
-
Good for it.
I do not see the flat tax as being likely, or the "fair" tax, either. Eliminating a lot of loopholes from what we have would be quite useful.
-
Both Flat & National sales tax do just that, remove ALL loopholes, not just "a lot"
-
I do not dispute that.
But the "Fair" Tax (which is not fair at all, puts every taxpayer in the position of getting a monthly check from the government.
The flat tax is simply unfair to nearly the entire population.
A better solution would be to eliminate many of the loopholes in the present tax.
-
No, actually a better solution is no loopholes, and everyone pays. The more one makes, the more they pay in a flat tax, while the more one buys the more one pays in a national sales tax.
Your evil "rich" are having to pay their "fair share" under both scenarios, and no loopholes for anyone
-
The more one makes, the more they pay in a flat tax,
That is incorrect: the Flat tax is a sales tax.
It is NOT based on income, it is based on consumption.
Observe that what we have in the US is a society based on consumerism.
Then consider the adage that if you tax something, you will get less of it.
Less consumption, slower economy.
NOT a good idea. I won't vote for anyone who want a flat tax or a "Fair" tax, but the flat tax is worse.
-
For those, like Xo, not able to pay attention
Flat Tax...pay a % of one's income --> the more one makes the more they pay
National Sales Tax (aka Fair Tax, aka Consumption Tax)...pay the tax of items purchased/consumed --> the more one buys/consumes, the more one pays
Your evil "rich" are having to pay their "fair share" under both scenarios, and no loopholes for anyone
-
Observe that what we have in the US is a society based on consumerism.
Then consider the adage that if you tax something, you will get less of it.
Note what our resident tax collecting advocate has opined as well. Tax something, you get less of it. So, by extension, tax income, you get less income, right? And making the taxes higher produces even less. Sounds about right
So, to be FAIR, and not punish anyone more than another, the best approach is that of either a Flat tax or National sales tax. EVERYONE pays, the more one makes or buys, they more tax they pay, NO LOOPHOLES
Someone now explain how that is unfair, please
-
it depends on the product
tobacco & alcohol- guarantee income.
computers & tvs- not too much income.
foods consumption ironically less- food has always been used as a expense cut- a parent will always cut their children s food budget for gas money for work or beer money.
reality can be scarey
-
Observe that what we have in the US is a society based on consumerism.
Then consider the adage that if you tax something, you will get less of it.
Less consumption, slower economy.
Perhaps we shyould tax people based on the amount of government they use rather than the amount that they earn.
I wouldn't mind less government , less earning is kinda backwards.
-
it depends on the product
tobacco & alcohol- guarantee income.
computers & tvs- not too much income.
foods consumption ironically less- food has always been used as a expense cut- a parent will always cut their children s food budget for gas money for work or beer money.
reality can be scarey
No one HAS to purchase tobacco or alcohol products, and people are free to choose their priorities. Bottom line is that it's fair to everyone, not "more fair to some and less fair to others"
-
I hate taxes they bore me to death. Talking about them is boring, paying them is boring, thinking about them is boring. Just soak the hell out of the rich and leave the rest of us tax free.
rich = anyone who wasn't in the military
BSB
-
One way or another we are obliged to tax earning power, whether directly or indirectly whether simply or in a complex formula.
XO reminded me in this thread that "if you tax something, you will get less of it."
We are necessacerily taxing earning power , perhaps what we really want less of is government , because we don't want less earning power.
-
I have exactly all the government I need: no more, no less. I suppose I could get along fine if they stopped invading other countries: that is very expensive.
.
-
I have exactly all the government I need: no more, no less. I suppose I could get along fine if they stopped invading other countries: that is very expensive.
.
How much of the budget is used for invading other countries?
-
Too much.
-
Good thing most here agree not to raises taxes, because as a supposed wise man once said consider the adage that if you tax something, you will get less of it
-
I simply was repeating an adage that all the righties seem to believe. Taxing consumption in a consumerist society seems unwise in principle, and certainly would have greater repercussions than raising the top tax rate 4% on the rich.
-
I simply was repeating an adage that all the righties seem to believe.
That you apparently agreed with, thus we welcome you to the side of not increasing any taxes
-
I was not saying that taxes should not be increased. I was pointing out that a tax on consumption was likely to decease consumption, which in turn would have a negative effect on the economy.
The topic was the flat tax and fair tax, not the income tax.
If we are to decrease the deficit, budget cuts AND tax increases will be needed to do this as rapidly as possible.
-
You said so yourself...increasing taxes on something, gets you less of that something. Did you not??
-
I think his point was that if a consumable has a higher tax applied to it, and the purpose of those taxes usually is to modify behavior( see alcohol and tabacco) people will tend to consume it less. Which is why taxing abortions is not a bad idea.
-
interesting thing about taxing products for behavior modification. it sometimes backfire due to the dependence of tax revenue.
I often hear complaints of such taxes are not generating enough money.
-
I think his point was that if a consumable has a higher tax applied to it, and the purpose of those taxes usually is to modify behavior( see alcohol and tabacco) people will tend to consume it less. Which is why taxing abortions is not a bad idea.
Thus reinforcing his and others point that increasing taxes on something, gets you less of that something
-
Not necessarily. Depends on the drop off in consumption vs the increase in tax revenues from the consumption that remains.
-
You mean it depends (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/i-have-2-competing-conspiracy-theories/msg123536/#msg123536)??
-
You mean it depends (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/i-have-2-competing-conspiracy-theories/msg123536/#msg123536)??
no i meant what i posted
-
I`m accusing the purpose of the consumption taxes is more economic driven than ethical. ex. the complaint of lack of money for rehad clinics due to less people paying tobbaco taxes
-
You mean it depends (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/i-have-2-competing-conspiracy-theories/msg123536/#msg123536)??
no i meant what i posted
And what you posted was IT DEPENDS ::)
-
There are variables to consider, yes.
-
LOL...under redudant, it says see redundant
-
and i'm sure there are studies that show that even with lower consumption, it is possible for tax revenues to increase. For example, if a tax is increased by 100% and consumption decreases 10% does the govt gain revenue or does it lose it?
-
You mean....it depends....some more?
-
100
200 x .9 = 180
80% gain
but people don`t normally buy something that increased 100% very quickly.
gas would be the exception.
-
and i'm sure there are studies that show that even with lower consumption, it is possible for tax revenues to increase. For example, if a tax is increased by 100% and consumption decreases 10% does the govt gain revenue or does it lose it?
Is the consequential effect on the people from this tax a decrease in standard of living?
-
and i'm sure there are studies that show that even with lower consumption, it is possible for tax revenues to increase. For example, if a tax is increased by 100% and consumption decreases 10% does the govt gain revenue or does it lose it?
Is the consequential effect on the people from this tax a decrease in standard of living?
That is possible, but it is usually a self imposed decrease as the choice to consume and therefore pay the increased tax on a given product is voluntary. Tobacco, alcohol and abortions would fit into this scenario.
-
Actually, the tax on tobacco and perhaps the tax on alcohol probably contribute to US society two ways: one, by contributing tax revenue, and two, by causing people to quit smoking and decreasing the incidence of deaths from lung cancer and cirrosis of the liver, which is an expensive way to die financed partly by taxpayers bearing the cost of uninsured people using public hospitals. The latter cost is not calculated into the equation.
7% of all Chinese die of tobacco-related diseases, but the Chinese government refuses to campaign vigorously against smoking because of the immense revenues from the profits of the state-owned tobacco company.
-
7% is kinda low, makes one think tobaco is not that bad at all. remember any kinda data about tobacco tend to get tweeked.
I say this because last month data say most americans are casduel instead of heavy smokers. and now docter ares saying lest start getting rid of smoking altogether.n stating aNY KIND OF SMOKING IS BAD.
I find this excessive and will question any research that says casual smoking kills.
-
Smoking causes not only lung cancer, but also heart problems, emphysema and bronchitis. I had one or the other every two years or so until I quit smoking in 1986 when I quit and have not had either since them.
Casual smoking is almost certainly dangerous, but less so than constant smoking. Most people who smoke are not casual smokers, anyway. Usually casual smokers do not live long enough to die of smoking related diseases,as they die from something else.
7% of Chinese is a huge number of people.
-
While abortion causes actual death, not a potential or hastening of it
-
abortion is a social issue, until you teach PEOPLE it`s ok to have kids then abortion will subside. banning abortion but shaming people for having kids is not thesolution. but to be fair pro-life address it more than pro-choice. but not enough.
Ive know parents in elementry school forbbidning thier kids from playing with single mother kids. thats too cold for my taste
-
Abortion causes a fetus not to be born.
If you do not favor abortion, don't have one.
People are free to smoke and drink, I am not advocating banning tobacco or prohibition of alcohol, only that their use be limited by information campaigns and taxes.
-
Abortion causes the death of an unborn child. Simple as that. Perhaps Bt is correct, that taxing abortions will lead to the same measures you advocate in tobacco & alcohol taxes
-
Thread tangent......Hope in the Abortion Fight
In New York City, 41 percent of babies are aborted.
It's even worse than that, actually.
As the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a group that supports abortion alternatives, has pointed out: "Sixty percent of African-American pregnancies in New York City were aborted in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. In a 10-year period beginning in 2000, more than 900,000 pregnancies in the city ended in abortion -- nearly one-eighth of the entire city population of just over 8 million."
Abortion, of course, is a hot-button word, bringing up all kinds of emotions in all kinds of people.
Even though it's legal, it's generally not considered a social good. Which is why groups that advocate for its ease of access -- and expansion -- typically go to great lengths to avoid the actual use of the word.
And, even though we may frequently avoid it at the dinner table and in political speech, there are some areas of consensus. For instance, even enlightened, progressive New Yorkers are shocked by the 41-percent statistic. Earlier this year, McLaughlin and Associates found that 64 percent of the city's residents think that number is shockingly high -- even 57 percent of self-identified pro-choice women agree.
So what's a desperate pregnant woman to do? If you live in New York, call the archbishop's office. Timothy Dolan has renewed a promise made by that great defender of human life, the late John Cardinal O'Connor: if you are pregnant and you need help, the Catholic Church will help you.
The Church has faced its well-publicized setbacks, but deep in the heart of its ongoing renewal is the commitment to the most innocent among us. It was a priority of the recently beatified Pope John Paul II, whose superior communication skills, fearlessness and love made it the premier human-rights issue of our day.
The awful numbers in New York present both a crisis and an opportunity. In part, to insist, as John Paul II was wont to, on a little truth.
Congress is getting in on the act. Shortly after Easter recess, the House passed a measure that would bar any taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that provided abortions. With that passage, the pro-life majority in the House codified the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion, and has been a favorite talking point of abortion advocates who oppose further government action. But the long-standing amendment is actually a narrow funding restriction, which does not apply to all federal funding. If the House bill were to pass the Senate, the president would be presented with a bill that would, for once, cover all federal funding, permanently. The House's vote wasn't a dramatic attack on women's rights as claimed by the left, but a protection for American taxpayers who don't want to be financially contributing to abortion.
And yet it was "appalling," the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee insists. EMILY's List, which supports pro-choice candidates for office, warns that it is a precursor to the looming "dark ages," and that it is but "only one heinous facet of (the right's) war on women." Actually, it's mainstream.
An-under-the-radar book, "Beyond a House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street, and the Media" by Carl Anderson, made the point that at a time when eight in 10 Americans actually want to significantly restrict the legality of abortion, the doom-laden rhetoric about a simple piece of legislation is pure nonsense. It is now long commonplace to insist you're personally opposed even when you advocate for it. Even Democrats appreciate that, at least in a lot of their rhetoric. Maybe the debate over abortion funding can united instead of a divide.
So many of us -- especially those whose lives have been changed by abortion -- want people to know they can support life, and that, besides ending a life, abortion will hurt the mother, the father, and so many around them. And there are groups out there in the trenches, spreading the word and doing the work. People like the folks at Good Counsel maternity homes in New York dedicate their lives to making sure women have options.
In 1996, during the partial-birth-abortion debate, the late congressman Henry Hyde warned of "the coldness of self-brutalization that chills our sensibilities, deadens our conscience and allows us to think of this unspeakable act as an act of compassion." Outraged New Yorkers and a simple funding bill in the House are signs we're not dead yet.
Op-ed (http://townhall.com/columnists/kathrynlopez/2011/05/07/hope_in_the_abortion_fight)
-
Thread tangent......Hope in the Abortion Fight
In New York City, 41 percent of babies are aborted.
..........., deadens our conscience and allows us to think of this unspeakable act as an act of compassion." Op-ed (http://townhall.com/columnists/kathrynlopez/2011/05/07/hope_in_the_abortion_fight)
Good article.
-
Thanks, Plane
-
I see taxing abortions as being clearly as unconstitutional as a poll tax. It means that the poor cannot purchase a service that is available to more wealthy people. Of course, to be declared unconstitutional, the case would have to be enacted into law by at least one state or other entity, challenged, and addressed by the Supreme Court . I see this as improbable.
-
I see taxing abortions as being clearly as unconstitutional as a poll tax. It means that the poor cannot purchase a service that is available to more wealthy people. Of course, to be declared unconstitutional, the case would have to be enacted into law by at least one state or other entity, challenged, and addressed by the Supreme Court . I see this as improbable.
What could we do to make Abortion less availible to the rich and poor alike?
-
I see taxing abortions as being clearly as unconstitutional as a poll tax. It means that the poor cannot purchase a service that is available to more wealthy people. Of course, to be declared unconstitutional, the case would have to be enacted into law by at least one state or other entity, challenged, and addressed by the Supreme Court . I see this as improbable.
Taxing abortions would be no more unconstitutional than taxing cigarettes and alcohol, which affects the poor more disproportionally than the rich. But that doesn't seem to bother the revenuers. All three purchases are elective.
-
seriously I just don`t see abortion being taxed a effective deterent.if cultural shame didn`t work how can finance. usually the cause of this situation override the concern of cost. so the tax gotta be excessively high to to work.
-
seriously I just don`t see abortion being taxed a effective deterent.
The Abortion could be taxed at 100.5 % of profit, that ought to do it.
-
What could we do to make Abortion less availible to the rich and poor alike?
========================================================
Being as much of the world does not ban abortion, the key to this would be to inspect all women leaving the country, and deny them the right to leave the country while pregnant.
Then you could impose a death penalty on any woman having an abortion as well as all people aiding and abetting abortionists.
I am sure the Supreme Court would go along with all these actions.
-
Why would we deny them the right to leave? The issue is making it less, not "banning" or "impossible". No one is claiming a banning of alcohol
-
If a pregnant woman cannot leave the country, she cannot get an abortion out of the country. This is simple to understand.
I am pretty sure that the Court would rule the law unconstitutional, but it this were the law, it would eliminate foreign abortons.
-
If a pregnant woman cannot leave the country, she cannot get an abortion out of the country. This is simple to understand.
I am pretty sure that the Court would rule the law unconstitutional, but it this were the law, it would eliminate foreign abortons.
How does taxing elective surgery here, eliminate elective surgery in foreign countries?
-
How does taxing elective surgery here, eliminate elective surgery in foreign countries?
================================================
The issue is how to pass a law in such a way that all women, both rich and poor, be prevented from getting an abportion, ever, anywhere.
The tax would make it impossible to get the abortion in the US.
The law against leaving the country would prevent women with a lot of money from getting the abortion outside the US.
-
If a pregnant woman cannot leave the country, she cannot get an abortion out of the country. This is simple to understand.
I am pretty sure that the Court would rule the law unconstitutional, but it this were the law, it would eliminate foreign abortons.
Good thing no one even hints of such a notion. Nice strawman though. And a tax merely makes it harder...NOT impossible
-
How does taxing elective surgery here, eliminate elective surgery in foreign countries?
================================================
The issue is how to pass a law in such a way that all women, both rich and poor, be prevented from getting an abportion, ever, anywhere.
The tax would make it impossible to get the abortion in the US.
The law against leaving the country would prevent women with a lot of money from getting the abortion outside the US.
I don't see how a tax makes it impossible to have elective surgery performed, any more than a tax makes it impossible to purchase cigarettes, alcohol or even go to a tanning salon which Obamacare saw fit to tax instead of liposuction or notox treatments.
If you want the product or service you pay the tax.
It's your choice.
-
Plane's question was "How can we make it harder for the rich and poor alike to have an abortion?"
And that was the question I was answering.
-
Plane's question was "How can we make it harder for the richa and poor alike to have an abortion?"
And that was the question I was answering.
I like your answer, but I would strike in the other direction.
Severe penaltys on anyone who commits abortion on viable fetuses , severe enough at least to remove all profit from the enterprise.
-
Severe penalties on anyone who commits abortion on viable fetuses , severe enough at least to remove all profit from the enterprise.
===================================
You can't do this if the abortion was (1) done out of the country and (2) the woman was not verfiably pregnant when she left the country for the abortion.
There is no way to prohibit abortions without putting restrictions on women that cannot be applied to men. That is the problem.
As you know, I don't think that the state has any right whatever to prevent any abortion.
-
Severe penalties on anyone who commits abortion on viable fetuses , severe enough at least to remove all profit from the enterprise.
===================================
You can't do this if the abortion was (1) done out of the country and (2) the woman was not verfiably pregnant when she left the country for the abortion.
There is no way to prohibit abortions without putting restrictions on women that cannot be applied to men. That is the problem.
As you know, I don't think that the state has any right whatever to prevent any abortion.
That is why the restriction method will not work. What would work is price of entry.
On the demand side you tax the service. 10% wqs th amount ObamaCare originally wanted to put on liposuction and botox.
On the supply side you license. Including auxiliary staff. What is the going rate for a taxi cab medallion in New York City?
Remember this country is structured on taxes paid by future citizens. There should be an opt out fee to mitigate the loss of future revenues to the state.
And please keep in mind that there are far cheaper alternatives for those who frugally plan ahead.
-
I refuse to talk about this today will respond tomorrow
just seems wrong
-
Severe penalties on anyone who commits abortion on viable fetuses , severe enough at least to remove all profit from the enterprise.
===================================
You can't do this if the abortion was (1) done out of the country and (2) the woman was not verfiably pregnant when she left the country for the abortion.
There is no way to prohibit abortions without putting restrictions on women that cannot be applied to men. That is the problem.
As you know, I don't think that the state has any right whatever to prevent any abortion.
I don't see the problem you you do.
I wouldn't mind abortion being forbidden to men also.
http://www.malepregnancy.com/ (http://www.malepregnancy.com/)
If you think that the state has an intrest in preventing murder , then thinking that the state has no intrest in preventing abortion is total abandonment of logic .
-
I refuse to talk about this today will respond tomorrow
just seems wrong
Ah!
it is no longer Mothers day on the east coast.
-
If you think that the state has an intrest in preventing murder , then thinking that the state has no intrest in preventing abortion is total abandonment of logic .
==================================
No, it isn't, because a fetus is not a person, therefore abortion is not murder. A person has an absolute right to their own body.
-
sorry
my brain just couldn`t handle thinking about this subject yesterday.
it just seems wrong.
I see a problem with the leave country scenerio. that particular person would more likely afford the extra tax and doesn`t need to leave.
tax is not a ban but a government income source so the lady or gentleman can still get it. rising taxes may slow demand for abortions but most definately not deter it.
leaving the country for a lower price? I had no idea airfare was so cheap
-
You can sure as hell save a ton of money on all sorts of dentistry by having it done in Mexico, lodging and airfare included. They have facelift safaris to the Republic of South Africa that cost a fraction of what the surgery alone would cost in the US. Thailand, Malaysia, Korea and Singapore also have a lot of Americans flying there for all sorts of medical procedures. In the US they can stick you for $1000 a day in the hospital, so airfare becomes a rather small part of the total expense.
-
all this talk about cost.
how does it cost?
I never had a impression it was cheap but I also don`t recall the cost being a deterent
-
You can sure as hell save a ton of money on all sorts of dentistry by having it done in Mexico, lodging and airfare included. They have facelift safaris to the Republic of South Africa that cost a fraction of what the surgery alone would cost in the US. Thailand, Malaysia, Korea and Singapore also have a lot of Americans flying there for all sorts of medical procedures. In the US they can stick you for $1000 a day in the hospital, so airfare becomes a rather small part of the total expense.
Are overseas medical procedures covered by most insurance plans?
-
If you think that the state has an intrest in preventing murder , then thinking that the state has no intrest in preventing abortion is total abandonment of logic .
==================================
No, it isn't, because a fetus is not a person, therefore abortion ois not murder. A person has an absolute right to their own body.
You are not a person either , as far as I know , in this iteration of the Turing test, you must prove you are a person and thereby deserveing of the protection of law against premature ending of your life.
-
where can I take that test? I`ve often been accused of lacking humanity. i like how i fare on that test
-
where can I take that test? I`ve often been accused of lacking humanity. i like how i fare on that test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)
You ARE taking it , you have been taking it , for years.
WE have no face to face contact, so when I guess whether you are or are not human I must rely on my impression of your words.
I am also takeing this test, do you think I could be imitated or replaced by a machine?
-
even face to face some people have doubts about me. i don`t exactly have much of a emotional range.
-
It is my belief that every person has an absolute right to control over their own body. Since only women can have children, this means that a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. It may be is a moral issue, but it is not MY moral issue, it is not YOUR moral issue, it is surely not the GOVERNMENT'S moral issue. I suppose that a woman would necessarily have to make her decision with her doctor as well, as abortions and births are not something that one person can often do all by themselves.
I disagree that suicide of any sort should be made illegal by the government, either, and for the same reason. I fail to see why I should have to take any test to prove my humanity because I do not agree with you or your government or the Bible, God or Jeezus.
I see this as a logical existentialist conclusion, and I hardly think I am the only one who believes the way I do.
-
It is my belief that every person has an absolute right to control over their own body. Since only women can have children, this means that a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. It may be is a moral issue, but it is not MY moral issue, it is not YOUR moral issue, it is surely not the GOVERNMENT'S moral issue. I suppose that a woman would necessarily have to make her decision with her doctor as well, as abortions and births are not something that one person can often do all by themselves.
I disagree that suicide of any sort should be made illegal by the government, either, and for the same reason. I fail to see why I should have to take any test to prove my humanity because I do not agree with you or your government or the Bible, God or Jeezus.
I see this as a logical existentialist conclusion, and I hardly think I am the only one who believes the way I do.
Morals aside, i see no reason why the elective surgery can not be taxed ... heavily.
-
Medicine should not be done for a profit. I see it as immoral to cure people for a profit.
Whatever your opinion about this, I seriously doubt that abortions will be taxed, and not punitively so.
-
Medicine is done for profit. That is why obamacare is such an abomination.
-
suicides are strange ,adults have huge natural self-preservation systems in their heads so you know it`s super hard to get somebody to end it. that`s why most programs center on kids since they haven`t developed theirs yet. it`s does explain why churches use fear and guilt to stop them. no kid gloves in religion. I`ve seen priest telling super depressed people their going to hell for it.
it made her massively more depressed but she stopped.
-
It is my belief that every person has an absolute right to control over their own body. Since only women can have children, this means that a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a child.
Let me presume something that might not be true.
I presume that you are not a rifleman that you have no ability to kill a person with a rifle at more than 1000 yards.
Really only a few people have this ability , so laws that make this sort of killing illeagal for these few are basicly unfair, forbidding the able as well as the unable from being bell tower snipers is just wrong .
Just as only women should be allowed to kill their own children in the woumb, only real rifelmen can kill at a distance and trying to prevent them from doing so on the theroy that the killed are in some respect " persons" is equally silly.
Have you ever noticed how small people are outside of 1000 yards? Really tiny, really tiny, easy to see that nothing that small is a human being.
-
The target of the rifleman is not a part of the rifleman's body. Your example is simply bogus.
-
hmm
still using guilt and not willing to deal with cause on this subject.
this may never end.
-
Actually, it's dead on target
-
The target of the rifleman is not a part of the rifleman's body. Your example is simply bogus.
I wasn't trying to avoid bogus.
Neither are you , the child has a right to preserve his own life , which can be presumed he would like to do.
To say that a person has a right to own his own body , includeing someone eleses is so bogus I am haveing a hard time makeing an example of something equally bogus.
-
hmm
still using guilt and not willing to deal with cause on this subject.
this may never end.
I think it possible that he will come around eventually.
If he does not , then the issue will be quite well explored from both directions , which is a value of itself.
-
The target of the rifleman is not a part of the rifleman's body. Your example is simply bogus.
I wasn't trying to avoid bogus.
Neither are you , the child has a right to preserve his own life , which can be presumed he would like to do.
To say that a person has a right to own his own body , includeing someone eleses is so bogus I am haveing a hard time makeing an example of something equally bogus.
Touche', Plane
-
A fetus is part of someone else's body until birth.
And that someone else is the owner of said body.
-
A fetus is part of someone else's body until birth.
And that someone else is the owner of said body.
I see your statement , but I don't see science or logic behind it , it is just a bald statement of your opinion.
If one person can own another, and it is no big deal, what were all those Yankees so upset about in 1864?
-
too ways to look at this.
hows this as a solution guilt-free surrendering of the child for adoption.
-
too ways to look at this.
hows this as a solution guilt-free surrendering of the child for adoption.
I like it fine.
What more should be done to make adoption easyer and safer?
-
I have nothing against adoptions at all. I simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child if she does not wish to. We do not force people to get liposuction or nose jobs or even dentures.
-
force-no
coerced- possible
15 years of everybody saying it`s great to have a baby and when you do. things change quick
-
I have nothing against adoptions at all. I simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child if she does not wish to. We do not force people to get liposuction or nose jobs or even dentures.
I don't think that any women should be forced into pregnancy , and no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .
-
no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .
The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable.
Religions mostly say it is at conception.
The question then becomes are we ruled by law or religion.
If by law and abortions are legal up to the point of viability, how do you rarify the legal procedures.
One way is to make the choice of carrying to term more advantageous and convenient than aborting.
Financial incentives might do the trick either with rewarding delivery and taxing non delivery.
The rewarding can be handled by the pro life folks, the taxing can be done by the state.
-
I am only quibbleing with you BT , but why doesn't science say that a person is a person for the whole of its lifespan?
What the law says it says without reason?
An important step has been skipped or gotten wrong , same thing as with the Dread Scott decision.
It was clear that reguarding Black people as persons under the law would be ruinous to the economy , unfair to their owners and entitle them to obvioulsly rediculous rights like gun ownership, so lets not reguard them as persons because this solves so many problems.
If there is not a real reason to reguard a baby as a person at a particular age and not another I have yet to see a convinceing case based on religion, or science.
Baseing the decision of whether to protect a persons rights on the economic impact of the decision just isn't seeking the truth, nor is considering the impact on any other person of the decision.
Either we respect human life , or we have qualified respect for human life as we find it convienent.
-
no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .
The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable.
And viable is at least 25weeks. The earliest I recall was 21, but 25 is definately viable. Not religiously, but biologically, factually, literally
Religions mostly say it is at conception.
The question then becomes are we ruled by law or religion.
So, if we are ruled by law, and viability can begin as early as 21, but definately by 25................is that not now a person, as defined by law?
-
Either we respect human life , or we have qualified respect for human life as we find it convienent.
Is that not the case?
Would you shoot a soldier wearing the wrong colored uniform?
Would you shoot an intruder who you felt would do harm to your family?
Are you for the death penalty?
Would you truly have wished OBL turned himself into the hague?
Perhaps we could look at pregnacy as a partnership between mother and fetus. The fetus is a minority partner until viability at which point they are fully vested and have equal rights.
The question then becomes is how do you enforce the viability delineation.
And perhaps that is where lawmakers should be focusing their efforts.
-
You are makeing a good point , respect for human life has to have reasonable limitation elese impossible paradoxes have to be delt with.
But there is a corrosive effect of reguarding a pregnancy as a disease and a baby before birth as no more consequential than a toumor, there is not a reality in deliniation between before and after birth, it is an innocent human being both before and after , when we are killing so many and so free of qualm, what causes us to reguard them as precious at all untill they start earning money and voting?
Your suggestion of considering the child as a junior partner at least acnoledges the humanity of it, I want that even if there is little protection resulting.
-
.is that not now a person, as defined by law?
===========================================
No.
It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.
Of course, idiots can pass anything into law they wish. They can pass a law declaring that pi is 3.0, or that there are 13 inches in a foot. But that does not change reality.
-
.is that not now a person, as defined by law?===========================================
No.
It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.
Not according to the law. Are you advocating we ignore the law, if it doesn't currently meet your ideological agenda? Your "perceived" reality?
-
The law cannot turn a fetus into a person. It cannot even turn an orangutan into a Republican.
-
The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.
As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that
-
The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.
As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that
Technically the law allowed abortions up to viability, i don't know if the law bestowed personhood at that point or simply drew a dividing line as to when the mothers rights were less dominant.
Interesting enough the Koran draws the line in the sand at 4 months at which point Allah imbues the fetus with a soul.
-
The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.
As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that
Technically the law allowed abortions up to viability....
The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable.
And viability starts at 21+weeks....ergo, a person
-
And viability starts at 21+weeks....ergo, a person
Viability simply means the fetus can survive outside the womb. perhaps you can cite where the courts have determined that equals personhood.
-
You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable."
ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks
-
You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable."
ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks
Perhaps i misspoke. What the courts said was this:
In 1973, Harry Blackmun wrote the court opinion for Roe v. Wade, saying "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."
In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted, which prohibits an abortion if "either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."[27]
Then there is this:
Some Christian theologians hold that ensoulment occurs when an infant takes its first breath of air. They cite, among other passages, Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."[21]
Which would go along with the intent of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
-
It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.
What is the reason , or logic or science behind this statement?
-
You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable."
ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks
Perhaps i misspoke.
Perhaps you did, though the word(s) couldn't be much clearer. viability. Not sure what's so hard about it, or the law pertaining to it
-
You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.
The courts say when the fetus is viable."
ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks
Perhaps i misspoke.
Perhaps you did, though the word(s) couldn't be much clearer. viability. Not sure what's so hard about it, or the law pertaining to it
Apparentky what i did was put words in Scotus's mouth. What they did with their viability statement was delineate as to when an abortion was permissible under Roe vs Wade and when it was not. I equated viability with personhood, they didn't. And thus my error.
-
One more time:
A woman has a right to have a child or not to have a child. All the decisions regarding this are up to her, not me and not you and not the government.
-
A woman has a right to have a child or not to have a child.
I find that legally unfair. If said person were to optain sperm from someone without permission. than that guy is legally responseble for that child.
thiers been a case where the husband banked frozen samples and in a divorce the wife was getton custody of the samples.
I don`t recall the male have any legal protections of anykind except in cases of the donors
-
I don't understand what you mean.
If some woman steals a man's sperm, I fail to see how he can be responsible for any child that results. He does not control where the sperm goes.
-
One more time:
A woman has a right to have a child or not to have a child. All the decisions regarding this are up to her, not me and not you and not the government.
A woman has limited rights regarding this.
-
the law sides for the well being of the child so whether the man is or is not the biological father he will more likely be financially responsible.
their are cases if the wife is gave birth with a child of another guy and the husband took care of them for a short period .he`s responsible for that kid .
sperm donors are kind of at risk also. you hear of of women who ask only a donation and will sign document saying the biological father is not responsible. such documents does not legally work so if she changes her mind the father will has to pay.
this is stuff I know 5 years ago.maybe things changed finally.
-
One more time:
A woman has a right to have a child or not to have a child. All the decisions regarding this are up to her, not me and not you and not the government.
You keep stopping short of explaining anything.
I would agree that a womans right to seek or avoid becomeing a mother is absolute and this right shouldn't be infringed except for serious reason and not without appropriate due process, if a woman chooses to avoid pregnancy that is entirely her right.
At no point does a man or a woman gain the right to kill another person without consideration of reason nor any due process at all.
Why is a baby a baby now when it was nothing ten minutes earlyer?
It is as if you had a section walled off and posted , >no logic allowed past this point<
-
I would say that having a child is simply not up to anyone other than the woman, with perhaps her doctor's advice.
That seems perfectly logical to me. If it is not logical to you, then we will disagree forever.
-
Rand Paul is an unspeakable turd.
People have a right to an education, public libraries and potable water, but that does not imply that anyone beats down the teacher's door, the librarian's door or the water purification guy's doors to demand it.
The people had to be nuts to elect this cryptofascist.
-
I would say that having a child is simply not up to anyone other than the woman, with perhaps her doctor's advice.
That seems perfectly logical to me. If it is not logical to you, then we will disagree forever.
When a woman has a child , is she priviliged to kill her?
-
BEFORE a woman has a child, she has the right to decide whether she shall NOT have that child.
-
BEFORE a woman has a child, she has the right to decide whether she shall NOT have that child.
Agreed- no woman ever should be forced into pregnancy.
That is almost as bad as kidnapping or slavery.
But killing a child also shouldn't happen.
When a woman is with child the child is dependant not pre-existant.
-
But killing a child also shouldn't happen.
When a woman is with child the child is dependant not pre-existant.
Fetus removal is not child killing. It is child prevention.
It is her call, not mine and not yours.
-
At least not in the 1st 21weeks, per the law
-
But killing a child also shouldn't happen.
When a woman is with child the child is dependant not pre-existant.
Fetus removal is not child killing. It is child prevention.
It is her call, not mine and not yours.
How is killing a child," child prevention"?
-
How is it NOT "child prevention".
But we are not talking abut killing children, we are discussing fetus removal, with the same result.
-
hmm
is it murder if the husband is constantly yelling at his wife and she got a miscarriage?
-
Of course not. It might be verbal abuse.
-
hmm
is it murder if the husband is constantly yelling at his wife and she got a miscarriage?
What if he yelled at her untill she died?
Can mean voice be a deadly weapon?
If so then yes.
-
I think there would need to be a serious court case for this to happen.
A mean voice is hardly a lethal weapon. If it were, imagine how cheaply any country could form an army.
The Verbal Abuse Brigade.
I am reminded of the Monty Python "killer joke" skit.