Why are so many scientists dems and not republican

It is absurd b/c the GOP has clearly gotten more conservative in some areas.

As before, I have said that already in an above post, prod.

You make it sound like the GOP becoming more conservativeis merely a matter of opinion, and you even tried to show that if the Dems have become more liberal, then the GOP could not have become more conservative.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Were any of you guys on the debate team in high school? or always wanting to win the argument at the family reunion? Just curious.
biggrin.gif
 
Elective surgery or not, it's in society's interest to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus it is legitimate for government to pay for abortions.

texasflag.gif


p.s.,

I want to apologize to Bevo Incognito for my part in derailing a very interesting topic.
 
Why is the government in the charity business at all? We have created a "Great Society" of leeches. When the leeches are killing babies, they've now become murdering leeches. Using my hard earned money to murder innocent babies is repulsive. I'd say to get rid of any representative who votes in favor of such.
 
Well stated, GT WT.

Also, it's the Christian thing to do.

Why is it that there is so much foisted into today's politics (contraception, abortion) under the rubric of religion, but when it comes to something like charity, which goes to the heart of Christ's message, it's all of a sudden a "free market thing" and not within the province of government?
 
Because it is not the government's business. I'm all for government programs that can provide temporary assistance to those that face particularly difficult trials in life. The problem is that when such programs become permanent, then they do more harm than good. Not only are you wasting money, but you are creating future problems with a cycle of dependency. This is where we are today, and turning back prior to bankruptcy will no doubt be met with violence from the dependency class, especially with the community organizer there to get them fired up.
 
It would greatly help if Bronco would provide statistics.

First, let's use the term "unintended pregancies" rather than "unwanted". That removes the issue of divining the intent of the mother and rightly places the focus more on the planning aspect.

Second, it is wrong to state that "very, very, few truly unwanted pregnancies that actually become a drain on society". Notwithstanding the mealyness of that sentence (as in, who gets to decide what "truly" is a drain on society?), what data we have refudiates it.

It would behoove Bronco to read this:

Link

Namely, this:

Results: Excluding miscarriages, 49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion.

You can find other reports, and more recent data, by googling the search string "guttmacher institute number of unintended pregancies".

Of course, this doesn't settle how many of those unintended pregnancies are "truly" a drain on society, but then, that is little more than a red herring, I assume, to distract us. No one is able to accurately track and measure what is "truly" a drain on society. For that part, if we're going to use economic factors to base our abortion decision, one need only look at Freakonomics to come to the opposite conclusion (that abortion is an economic plus).

The rest of Bronco's analysis withers away when we use the correct term "unintended" rather than "unwanted".

The problem is the number of unintended pregancies. If you're serious about reducing the number of abortions you have to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That is the problem; it is NOT just that poor women are having kids.
 
Unfortunately (for you), that does not follow.

You seemed to not have read the "just' part, as well.

The antagonism toward having the govt pay for abortions is perplexing. And short-sighted.
 
Really its not. What is the incentive for someone to "not" have unprotected sex these days. Outside of AIDS, the government will pretty much take care of everything else for you. No consequences.

Perham I appreciate the fact that you are caring and you have very good intentions. I just wish you would look at the real and actual results as opposed to your good intentions.

We have a society of leeches. We are going bankrupt as a country and the POTUS is parading around the country promising even more so that we can expand the community of leeches.
 
One side believes it is the government's duty to take care of everyone.

Oh, I never said it was the duty of the govt to do this. Not al all. My position is that it is a justified and effective social policy position to do so. But that doesn't make it a duty.

But no, the other side most definitely doesn't believe in "personal responsibility"; well, maybe they do but they are little more than bald-faced hypocrites when using that as their reason here.

For them, "personal responsibility" is an argument to be trotted out very selectively. Let gays marry and be personally responsible for that? Oh no, we can't let that happen. So spare me your "personal responsibility" sermon.
 
Yeah, you're right, why not let gays marry. For that matter, why not let fathers marry their daughters. Or their sons for that matter. Its their business, right?
 
Except that the cons cannot let the gays accept the consequences of them being married.

Face it: the mantra of "personal responsibility" that gets chanted again and again is little more than an impotent prayer, recited only to make you feel better about yourself, but utterly vacant when it comes to deciding your actions, or more accurately, when it would cause your actions to diverge from your political views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top