The Republican Utopia

[ZRod]

21 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

But wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between belief, such as my belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and died to save those who believe in Him from their sin, and verifiable scientific fact? What's interesting is that the Christian community has been ahead of the "science" crowd on this one for a long time.

Ahead of what? Where in the bible does it talk about abortion again?

[BigRedBuster]

18 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals

 

LINK

 

 

Do you believe that charitable giving could take care of all social issues that need to be addressed throughout our population?

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, ZRod said:

That's great and all, but why can't the government (We the people and all that jazz... To promote the general welfare) help protect it's citizens basic needs? Most of Europe figured out a way. But here we'll protect you until your born, then good luck to ya.

 

How about this: give people the option to direct where their money gets sent after it's stolen from them. All non-profit organizations are eligible as well as government programs, and taxpayers can log into a website and select which organizations they'd like to send their money to. Then the far left can send their money to planned parenthood, the hard right can send their money to the defense department, and reasonable and rational individuals can send their money to actual charities that do good things that we value.

 

In all reality though, I've always been intrigued by the idea of a UBI in the form of a negative income tax kind of like what Milton Friedman talked about. The structure could be set up not to disincentivize people from entering the work force.

 

Even as a libertarian who despises government programs, this is one issue that I could go for as long as it was put in place of all of our existing welfare programs.

[ActualCornHusker]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Ahead of what? Where in the bible does it talk about abortion again?

 

Christians have maintained for decades that a fetus is a human being with intrinsic worth, and it has taken the "science" community a long time to catch up because they're just now beginning to accept that fact.

 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Do you believe that charitable giving could take care of all social issues that need to be addressed throughout our population?

 

Most likely not, but the government welfare programs don't either, so I don't see why that's always the excuse of why we have to have all of the existing govt programs.

 

Although I'd be interested what you think of the idea of a negative income tax (form of UBI promoted by Milton Friedman) in place of existing welfare programs

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Christians have maintained for decades that a fetus is a human being with intrinsic worth, and it has taken the "science" community a long time to catch up because they're just now beginning to accept that fact.

 

Christians maintained slaves.

 

Christians maintained that women should not be allowed to vote.

 

Christians maintained that wives should not be allowed to refuse to have sex with their husbands.

 

Christians may not be the best example of right & wrong in this conversation.

 

There's also zero scientific consensus for the bold. Don't mistake your beliefs for fact.

[Dr. Strangelove]

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I could not disagree with the bold more. It is a deaffirmation of a woman's personhood to believe this.

 

The last sentence is where I base my stance on abortion. We will not stop abortion in the courts - it will never stop. Women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term will abort the pregnancy. They've been doing it for thousands of years.

 

What legal abortion does is minimizes the risk of the practice. That's the humanitarian goal of abortion, and that's what we should be fighting to keep legal and safe.

I think I could be persuaded, but ultimately I view it as an unfair burden women face. That child - at a certain point - is a person. 

 

But I also recognize that I'm a male and as such, I really shouldn't tell women how to feel about this issue. We fully agree on the last part.

24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yes.

 

And, where I would prefer to focus energy, money and time is figuring out, why are those women desperate and trying to figure out how to eliminate that.

As far as elimination, proper sex education and access to contraceptives is a leading reason behind the decline of abortions for the last few decades.

 

Ironically, the people most opposed to abortion are also the same people against the leading preventative measures.

[nic]

I wish folks would look into adoption more. I am not sure what environmental thing we have done to ourselves but Infertility or trouble with miscarriages is becoming more and more common.  I can think of 3 couples struggling that will probably end up adopting. I know many couples that adopted little girls from China back when they had the 1 child policy. There are many who are willing to adopt. 13.5 million a year  may be alot, but I am happy for every kid that gets a chance.

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

As far as elimination, proper sex education and access to contraceptives is a leading reason behind the decline of abortions for the last few decades.

 

Ironically, the people most opposed to abortion are also the same people against the leading preventative measures.

 

Alito's position explicitly calls into question the right to contraception. The foundation is very clearly laid out, and that's among the next steps in this attack on rights.

[Dr. Strangelove]

18 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

 

 

Most likely not, but the government welfare programs don't either, so I don't see why that's always the excuse of why we have to have all of the existing govt programs.

 

Although I'd be interested what you think of the idea of a negative income tax (form of UBI promoted by Milton Friedman) in place of existing welfare programs

This is profoundly untrue.

 

The recent child tax credit reduced child poverty significantly in the few months it was active, just as one example.

 

The SNAP program (food stamps) reduces food insecurity and the economy generates more money in return for every dollar spent on it.

 

There are dozens of programs I could give you that are similar. Goverment programs are imperfect, but acting like they aren't helpful and private solutions would be better is simply untrue.

[DevoHusker]

2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm confused here and not sure if I'm missing something - isn't the current status of Roe the common sense compromise? 

 

It federally protects the right to an abortion but it gives states the freedom to impose certain legal restrictions. 43 of the 50 states have a prohibition on abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy - that doesn't sound like all or nothing.

 

There needs to be more uniformity IMO. I don't mind the Fed involvement, as long as it functions as some sort of oversight. 

 

As pointed out earlier, there seems to be a consensus in a woman's right to have an abortion...up to a certain point in the gestational process. As you point out, 43 States limit the practice, but there is no comparable standard. Use this decision to make it a level playing field. I personally would say set the cap at the first trimester, but then allow the standard exceptions of rape, incest, danger to mother.  

 

I read that somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of abortions are currently performed for personal/social/lifestyle considerations. 

[nic]

A friend from Denmark once asked me why the abortion debate in the US was so visceral. I asked him what Denmark does. This was 20 or more years ago.  He said before 13 weeks abortion was allowed. After 13 you needed to go to court and prove you needed it.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

I read that somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of abortions are currently performed for personal/social/lifestyle considerations. 

 

Six in ten Americans who get an abortion are already mothers.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Although I'd be interested what you think of the idea of a negative income tax (form of UBI promoted by Milton Friedman) in place of existing welfare programs

I've read some on UBI but I have no clue if it was from Friedman or not.  And, I have to say, I'm shocked you're actually interested in this in a positive way. 

 

But...In general, like I've said, I'm a smaller government type of guy.  Smaller the better and more efficient the better.  Where we differ (other than your total disdain for everything government and thinking it's the most evil organization in the world) is that I believe government actually has a purpose.  I guess for you, I would say it's a necessary evil.  We just have to manage it well.  And, we both can agree it's been mismanaged a lot.

 

So, getting to this subject, I also believe there is a certain level of person in our population that a developed and caring society needs to take care of.  These are people who just can't do it for themselves.  That could be for health reasons, age, handicap (mental or physical)...etc.  And, sometimes people are going in and out of these groups.  Some people are partially in and just need some help and others need total help. So, for me, I want to do that in the most efficient way that they are taken care of to the best of our ability.  The argument then becomes exactly who needs taken care of and who doesn't....which that's for a whole other thread.

 

To answer the question in short, if the UBI would accomplish this more efficiently and do what we need it to do, then I'm willing to listen.

[Danny Bateman]

26 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Alito's position explicitly calls into question the right to contraception. The foundation is very clearly laid out, and that's among the next steps in this attack on rights.

 

The fun part is if you point this out conservatives are liable to gaslight you and say you're being hysterical!

 

Plausible deniability is their favorite bulwark to hide behind right up until they're actually doing what they obviously want to do.

 

When you hold increasingly extreme positions, it's easier to just pretend you don't and anyone who says otherwise is ridiculous.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Virtually all conservatives (particularly religious conservatives) voiced opposition to allowing same sex couples to foster and/or adopt children.

I vehemently disagree with those conservatives on that.  If a same sex couple can provide a loving nurturing home, then all the best for everyone.