Progressive principles all lies

[InwardContour]

I would disagree with you on this one. A mother is risking a lot when she is pregnant. Every time a women is pregnant there is a possibility that she could die as a result of the pregnancy (the chances are lower for some), why should she be forced to take this risk? This also opens the debate as to what is and is not considered to be "alive" IMO something is considered to be alive when it can survive on it's own outside of the womb (even with help from "medicine/medical technology" while others could argue that individual sperm cells are "alive"

...
2. It has nothing to do with how long it can survive outside of the womb. Somewhere and someday there will be a person with a collapsed lung being sustained by life support. During that time they are still human; even though they can't survive without assistance. Just because they can't survive without life support doesn't mean they aren't alive. They are still alive and aware of their existence, and that is what makes the difference between abortion being right and wrong.

I was including the ability of a fetus being able to survive outside the womb but on some kind of life support. I am honestly not well versed on science on this level, but I would think that a fetus would be able to survive on it's own prior to being self aware.

If you argue that it is wrong to kill a fetus via abortion because it is human because it is self aware, would you say that it is okay to get an abortion prior to the baby fetus self aware? Is there any scientific evidence to support at what point, or around what point a fetus becomes self aware (I really do not know the answer to this question)?

Let me ask you another question: would you feel that it would be okay to get an abortion if the baby may, or may not survive for long once born and regardless of survival would suffer greatly? One possible scenario would be that a drug addict of some kind is trying to get sober, gets pregnant, but doesn't think she can stay sober for her entire pregnancy. If she cannot stay sober it would cause the fetus great pain and suffering in the event it survives and would damage the baby's organs greatly.

Another scenario would be that the mother is not sure she can provide a safe "home" for the fetus during her pregnancy. If she is the subject of abuse and/or was (and could potentially be again) the subject of physical abuse then when the abuser hits her the fetus could be hurt and have similar issues as above. She is forced to stay with the abuser because of some kind of dependency on him (either for shelter, money or similar - and no other resources are available including a women's shelter), or she has a restraining order against him but is not 100% sure that he will actually stay away.

Most of the 1% got to be as rich as they are because they are very smart and hardworking and had a little bit of good luck/timing. There is no reason to think someone is evil simply for being successful.

You must be referring to the 10% club and not the 1% club. Many wealthy people worked hard and got lucky to become wealthy. Those people are not the 1%...

I don't know if they are evil or just completely indifferent and bored. I think the 1% have lost sight of what it means to be human or a part of any society.

There are a lot of 1%'ers that contribute a lot to society. Some of the largest foundations are funded solely by the "1%"

I am not 100% sure what you mean by they have lost sight of what it means to be human or be part of society. If you are referring to them spending a lot of money, then why should they not be able to spend money that is rightfully theirs? If you mean it is a certain way that they act then I would need an (or some) examples.

A lot of the 1% is comprised by people who took great risks in starting their own company with little to nothing to start with and made money because they had great ideas.

[1714730960]

1714730960

[1714730960]

1714730960

[1714730960]

1714730960

[1714730960]

1714730960

[pungopete468]

If you argue that it is wrong to kill a fetus via abortion because it is human because it is self aware, would you say that it is okay to get an abortion prior to the baby fetus self aware? Is there any scientific evidence to support at what point, or around what point a fetus becomes self aware (I really do not know the answer to this question)?

I have no issue with abortion prior to the point where a fetus becomes self-aware. The point of self-awareness is the point where the fetus learns the ability to move its own extremities in response to a stimulus. As far as determining self-awareness before the ability to move itself I suppose you could theoretically use EEG once that technology is refined and sensitive enough to detect brain waves through so much protective tissue...

Let me ask you another question: would you feel that it would be okay to get an abortion if the baby may, or may not survive for long once born and regardless of survival would suffer greatly? One possible scenario would be that a drug addict of some kind is trying to get sober, gets pregnant, but doesn't think she can stay sober for her entire pregnancy. If she cannot stay sober it would cause the fetus great pain and suffering in the event it survives and would damage the baby's organs greatly.

That is no longer a question of abortion but rather a question of euthanasia. I'm not against euthanasia in cases where consent is given of sound mind in cases where death is highly likely (in this case by parental consent.) Nobody should have to suffer the torture of waiting for certain death, writhing in agonizing pain, slowly suffering; it's also a major financial burden on the healthy family members left behind. If a sane and competent mind can look at a scenario and conclude that they would never wish themselves or loved ones to suffer to the extent of such a scenario then it is no longer a question about the morality of abortion, rather the morality of euthanasia.

Another scenario would be that the mother is not sure she can provide a safe "home" for the fetus during her pregnancy. If she is the subject of abuse and/or was (and could potentially be again) the subject of physical abuse then when the abuser hits her the fetus could be hurt and have similar issues as above. She is forced to stay with the abuser because of some kind of dependency on him (either for shelter, money or similar - and no other resources are available including a women's shelter), or she has a restraining order against him but is not 100% sure that he will actually stay away.

The mother can leave the child at the Hospital without any legal recourse. The child will be taken care of and orphaned. There are already several legal precedents in cases where an assailant is charged with the murder of an unborn child...

I am not 100% sure what you mean by they have lost sight of what it means to be human or be part of society. If you are referring to them spending a lot of money, then why should they not be able to spend money that is rightfully theirs? If you mean it is a certain way that they act then I would need an (or some) examples.

A lot of the 1% is comprised by people who took great risks in starting their own company with little to nothing to start with and made money because they had great ideas.

In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that they don't spend their money. It's theirs to spend at will... I don't believe the 1% we know of are the real 1%. I'm sure some are, but I believe that the fortunes of many of the 1% are obfuscated and distributed in a way that makes them appear less wealthy. The people who took risks and had great ideas are long dead in many of these family dynasties...

I mean they only care about money, in many cases forsaking family, friends, and anything else which might burden them to show some compassion. The top 2% - 10% are those who in many cases started their own companies, did the leg work, put in the time, and had great ideas. The true top 1% is unfathomably wealthy and likely had no engagement in the acquisition of that wealth...

I'm not suggesting they donate to charity, most do that as a tax write off. I'm suggesting they become more engaged individually with helping others who they run across... Take a more personal engagement in the future of society.

I'm mostly directing my attitude towards the old money and family dynasties...

[Este Nuno]

I have just a few basic issues that I consider to be deal killers for progressives. They are all logic fails that expose progressives as a group of people whose tenets are built on lies preached as truth by intellectual priests and control mongers.

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent. We put armed prison guards in towers for a reason. The death penalty is an obvious deterrent. Its implementation and other cultural factors like "honor killings", the war on drugs, poverty are impossible to factor out of statistics, but don't try and convince anyone the death penalty is not a deterrent. A world filled with murder says otherwise. The argument enrages me. Get this though, I don't believe in the death penalty 99% of the time. I don't think we have high enough standards of evidence. But don't make me spew stupid arguments, convince me otherwise.

Maybe it is a deterrent and maybe it isn't. But there is a big difference between the guy in the watchtower with a gun and the vague possibility that committing murder might cost your life in the end. In order for it to be a deterrent it would have to be factor in preventing someone from doing something that often isn't rational in the first place. It may be a minor deterrent, but it's certainly not at the front of peoples mind when they're murdering or planning to murder.

The death penalty most certainly can be on someone's mind I think Saudi Arabia is a good example as you can be executed for a lot of things (and they have a long history of using the death penalty to immediately change public behavior, see recent news on drifting in Saudi Arabia)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164979/Saudi-court-sentences-joyrider-death-beheading-killing-people-drifting-car-stunt.html

However, the more you amp up the threat of death the more inhumane the punishment becomes, see Saudi Arabia.

I am ok voting down the death penalty for reasons like it is too costly to implement, the risk of killing someone innocent is too great, and any of a number of other reasons. But don't tell me it is not a deterrent.

I didn't say that it's not a deterrent, but that it's a minor one at best. Most people committing murders aren't thinking rationally. There may be times where someone who was conspiring to commit a murder decided against it because of fear of being put to death. But that has to be pretty rare.

[commandrix]

5. The 1% are evil.

The people you call "the 1%" legitimately came by their wealth through any combination of hard work, inheritance, luck (or call it "being in the right place at the right time" if you want), and good honest ambition. Essentially, they made the system currently in place work for them. Hell, just talk to any of the people who invested in Bitcoin in 2009 and they'll say that they just bought some of this cool new virtual token thing when it was cheap. Yes, I would be very happy if the mega-rich donated most of their combined fortunes to a cause that will actually make a difference to humanity in the long run, but I'm not going to ask any government or politician to force them to do it when maybe they didn't do anything unethical to come by their fortune.

[Honeypot]

Left is easily manipulated and cajoled with power and attention. The so-called 'progressives' of today are not political idealists or even amateur party players of political scene. They are weak minded, insecure and ultimately infantile bastard children of the moral and cultural ignorance of the 60s that masqueraded as 'progress' and 'liberalism'.

Liberalism has been subverted by racist outsiders and ethnic minorities with racial inclinations that make KKK look rational in comparison. I speak from a personal experience of being born into such an environment, and at distant time in the past in my youth, shamelessly preaching such racial ignorance of so called 'oppressed' minority as 'justice' and 'equality'.

I have also lived for the better part of my life outside of 1st world nations, and have seen and felt the real facts about oppression and racism.

There is no black, brown, yellow or shit or piss around 1st world nations that have any right to bitch and moan about injustices in today's society. They have not the slightest idea what it means to face real oppression. All they are doing is trying manipulate and cajole the guilt and moral standards of 1st world nations to attempt a power grab and manipulate others.

Liberalism has always been prone to walking down the wide open road of seemingly 'righteous' path which is nothing more than shallow self-gratification. As seemingly 'convincing' mouths from middle east or palestine have begun to try and manipulate the guilt and moral standards of others to their own benefit have begun to reach out to 1st world, more and more weak-willed and weak minded children are becoming confused about themselves and their standards.

The fact that arab and 'palestinian' racists who have enslaved and butchered hundreds of millions across the world (ironically some of the poorest locations in the world today) will try to subvert the idealism and naivete of the 1st world 'liberals' should be glaringly obvious.

Muslims and their ilk have always bowed down to one rule: brutality, rape, and violation. They are meek as a prostitute with legs wide open against people who display strength and hatred, yet are spineless enough to think they can take advantage once they 'believe' someone is weaker than they. They also have a kind of racially motivated ego that attempts to take advantage of naive 'rationalism' of liberals today - that is, there is no such thing as rationalism but only reasoning after the fact. You can't reason away racism or racial arrogance any more than you can reason away cancer or adolescent hell raising.

In short, people are too naive and are being manipulated by those who (for now) have stronger motivation to be vocal and arrogant in what they want to believe in, and facts or reasons be damned. Only force and stronger brutality is the real rational answer to these problems.

Harden the fuck up kids.

[newflesh]

Strange that fairness and equality get such a hard deal nowadays 

Can only think ignorant people would associate 'liberalism' with being evil

[DieJohnny]

Left is easily manipulated and cajoled with power and attention. The so-called 'progressives' of today are not political idealists or even amateur party players of political scene. They are weak minded, insecure and ultimately infantile bastard children of the moral and cultural ignorance of the 60s that masqueraded as 'progress' and 'liberalism'.

Liberalism has been subverted by racist outsiders and ethnic minorities with racial inclinations that make KKK look rational in comparison. I speak from a personal experience of being born into such an environment, and at distant time in the past in my youth, shamelessly preaching such racial ignorance of so called 'oppressed' minority as 'justice' and 'equality'.

I have also lived for the better part of my life outside of 1st world nations, and have seen and felt the real facts about oppression and racism.

There is no black, brown, yellow or shit or piss around 1st world nations that have any right to bitch and moan about injustices in today's society. They have not the slightest idea what it means to face real oppression. All they are doing is trying manipulate and cajole the guilt and moral standards of 1st world nations to attempt a power grab and manipulate others.

Liberalism has always been prone to walking down the wide open road of seemingly 'righteous' path which is nothing more than shallow self-gratification. As seemingly 'convincing' mouths from middle east or palestine have begun to try and manipulate the guilt and moral standards of others to their own benefit have begun to reach out to 1st world, more and more weak-willed and weak minded children are becoming confused about themselves and their standards.

The fact that arab and 'palestinian' racists who have enslaved and butchered hundreds of millions across the world (ironically some of the poorest locations in the world today) will try to subvert the idealism and naivete of the 1st world 'liberals' should be glaringly obvious.

Muslims and their ilk have always bowed down to one rule: brutality, rape, and violation. They are meek as a prostitute with legs wide open against people who display strength and hatred, yet are spineless enough to think they can take advantage once they 'believe' someone is weaker than they. They also have a kind of racially motivated ego that attempts to take advantage of naive 'rationalism' of liberals today - that is, there is no such thing as rationalism but only reasoning after the fact. You can't reason away racism or racial arrogance any more than you can reason away cancer or adolescent hell raising.

In short, people are too naive and are being manipulated by those who (for now) have stronger motivation to be vocal and arrogant in what they want to believe in, and facts or reasons be damned. Only force and stronger brutality is the real rational answer to these problems.

Harden the fuck up kids.

You kick ass

[InwardContour]

Let me ask you another question: would you feel that it would be okay to get an abortion if the baby may, or may not survive for long once born and regardless of survival would suffer greatly? One possible scenario would be that a drug addict of some kind is trying to get sober, gets pregnant, but doesn't think she can stay sober for her entire pregnancy. If she cannot stay sober it would cause the fetus great pain and suffering in the event it survives and would damage the baby's organs greatly.

That is no longer a question of abortion but rather a question of euthanasia. I'm not against euthanasia in cases where consent is given of sound mind in cases where death is highly likely (in this case by parental consent.) Nobody should have to suffer the torture of waiting for certain death, writhing in agonizing pain, slowly suffering; it's also a major financial burden on the healthy family members left behind. If a sane and competent mind can look at a scenario and conclude that they would never wish themselves or loved ones to suffer to the extent of such a scenario then it is no longer a question about the morality of abortion, rather the morality of euthanasia.

Wouldn't an abortion and euthanasia be one and the same from a medical viewpoint in this case?

Another scenario would be that the mother is not sure she can provide a safe "home" for the fetus during her pregnancy. If she is the subject of abuse and/or was (and could potentially be again) the subject of physical abuse then when the abuser hits her the fetus could be hurt and have similar issues as above. She is forced to stay with the abuser because of some kind of dependency on him (either for shelter, money or similar - and no other resources are available including a women's shelter), or she has a restraining order against him but is not 100% sure that he will actually stay away.

The mother can leave the child at the Hospital without any legal recourse. The child will be taken care of and orphaned. There are already several legal precedents in cases where an assailant is charged with the murder of an unborn child...[/quote]A mother can also leave the child at a fire station with the same legal protection. I remember learning this as a very young child (probably in elementary school, maybe in ~3rd grade) in a school setting but was really never told this fact again. The fact that I remember learning is that it can be left at a fire station with no questions asked and they would see that the baby is taken care of. I don't remember specifically learning about leaving a baby at a hospital, but I do not doubt the truth to that statement and it makes sense to me. I think our education system should stress this option more.

The above point is not so much a safe place to live, but rather that her body may not be a safe place for a fetus as she is the subject to abuse. It is about prior to her giving birth. 

[Honeypot]

Strange that fairness and equality get such a hard deal nowadays 

Can only think ignorant people would associate 'liberalism' with being evil

Let me use your wife and daughter first, and call it equality

[newflesh]

Strange that fairness and equality get such a hard deal nowadays 

Can only think ignorant people would associate 'liberalism' with being evil

Let me use your wife and daughter first, and call it equality

lol trust me, you wouldn't want to tap my wife