[PBVBROOK]

Let me ask you Ninurta. Do you want to give the poor food, a home, clothing and everything they need?

Breaking the cycle of poverty requires time. When someone is homeless, sick or hungry they have no time. Their needs are far to immediate for them to seek any long term solution. That is why liberals realize that first you have to stabilize their situation and then go after the cause. Or more directly, there is no value in sending a hungry man to school. He can't learn.

So when you look at the libertarian position that all of this help should come from private sources please realize that some of it already does. Tons of it. But the government's social safety net is keeping people alive in the US who would otherwise starve. The cold hard fact of life is that as generous as Americans are (and we are the most generous people in the world) private charities still do not have the resources to accomplish the mission. That is why we are relying on the government to do so much.

[ninurta]

Let me ask you Ninurta. Do you want to give the poor food, a home, clothing and everything they need?

Yes, and if I could I would.

Though I hate making what I do for charity public, I am going to say that so far I donate to a children's hospital to make sure uninsured children get care and I currently am giving to a few other charities.

Breaking the cycle of poverty requires time. When someone is homeless, sick or hungry they have no time. Their needs are far to immediate for them to seek any long term solution. That is why liberals realize that first you have to stabilize their situation and then go after the cause. Or more directly, there is no value in sending a hungry man to school. He can't learn.

Though I agree with you, I hope you realize its not just liberals. I have made it my life's mission to do humanitarian work. I wanted to not say this, but I don't want you to fear that I don't care about people. This is what I choose to do with my life, I choose to help others. I exist to help them, that is why I was born. Though I don't feel the government is the way to do it.

So when you look at the libertarian position that all of this help should come from private sources please realize that some of it already does. Tons of it. But the government's social safety net is keeping people alive in the US who would otherwise starve. The cold hard fact of life is that as generous as Americans are (and we are the most generous people in the world) private charities still do not have the resources to accomplish the mission. That is why we are relying on the government to do so much.

I understand why you want the government to step it, that is why I don't have any hate for your position, though I believe that working to get more and more help from the private charities is the best way. I have already come up with an idea that would help get more food to those without. I had this idea when I saw a cmmon practices that rally made me angry, wasting food.

[grypo]

Though I don't feel the government is the way to do it.

In a sense, I've always agreed with this, but at this point in our political evolution, I think the state is the best option to accomplish what PBVBROOK is discussing. I'd like to think that we will be "the state" someday, meaning we will have less of a need for representatives and we would accomplish these goals through organization and education, but that day is along way off. Then again, in my fantasy world there would be no need for capitol or property ownership. I can dream.

[Zerogouki]

First, a person = human, a human = person. Are chimpanzees persons? No, as a person (obviously) is a human being.

This is completely erroneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

The poor person can't afford the healthcare.

Because it's so damn expensive... because the government keeps fucking with it.

Zero: The most complex brain activity

There you go again! Stop changing your terms! Are we talking about brain activity at all, or brain activity "in earnest", or "the most complex" brain activity?

if personhood begins with cortical activity and the cortex is still forming when a baby is born, from a philosophical standpoint, by your definition, it wouldn't be murder to kill a newborn baby.

Wrong. I never said anything about the cortex "still forming". I said "activity".

tend to think that brain activity connotes personhood. A baby born without a brain is human, but it isn't a person. A Human who is brain dead is alive, but not a person.

Yes, exactly, although brain functions related to things like heartbeat obviously wouldn't count.

Besides that, if abortion were made illegal, women who didn't want to have a baby would simply start hitting themselves in the stomach with baseball bats when they missed a period. Violent miscarriages would lead to infections and hysterectomies. you wouldn't save any babies, you'd just put mothers at risk. And we can't handle more babies put up for adoption, so that's not the answer. The adoption system is already stretched to its limits.

Tell it to someone who's pro-life.

You REALLY think that if we repealed SCHIP Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be coughing up money for poor black kids to get heart transplants? You're delusional if you do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

That second one is from renowned right-wing propaganda machine, ABC News.

We went a LONG time in this country with no mandatory health coverage for children and kids died by the millions from preventable diseases, often because they were working for rich men in factories for barely any money, and when they got sick they were fired and died.

That was more due to a lack of development than a lack of government involvement. Our level of economic development the time was basically the same as China's was 20 years ago. Do you think that if China adopted child-labor laws and a $5/hour minimum wage, they'd transform into a first-world paradise overnight? Hell no. They'd just be slowing down their progress toward such a state.

It's heartwarming, your naivete for the charity of the rich

Excellent example. He and Warren Buffet are both staunch liberals.

At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that it's extremely common practice for leftists to change their position slightly whenever it's demonstrated to be completely untenable.

So when you look at the libertarian position that all of this help should come from private sources please realize that some of it already does. Tons of it. But the government's social safety net is keeping people alive in the US who would otherwise starve. The cold hard fact of life is that as generous as Americans are (and we are the most generous people in the world) private charities still do not have the resources to accomplish the mission. That is why we are relying on the government to do so much.

Perhaps said charities would have the resources to accomplish the mission if we weren't taxing everyone out their asses to pay for a useless $800 billion/year leech in Washington (AKA the Department of Health and Human Services).

[DanDaMan]

Then again, in my fantasy world there would be no need for capitol or property ownership. I can dream.

Where would you rather live...North or South Korea?

[grypo]

Where would you rather live...North or South Korea?

This is a fantastic attempt to get me to say South Korea so you you can tell me how much I actually secretly love capitalism, but really, just stop. My comment had to do with a society that has neither economic, social, or political hierarchy. That's it. Neither Korea offers either.

[Infidelis]

I would like to live in DDM's mind...sounds like a very stimulating place

Except that the brain-dead are not people anymore. That's not always the case with fetuses.

When is it the case for fetuses? 3rd trimester?

And what determines how much of a "person" a being is?

[Zerogouki]

When is it the case for fetuses? 3rd trimester?

And what determines how much of a "person" a being is?

I would argue sentience, which might occur as early as 18 weeks.

[Infidelis]

4.5 months...that seems like a reasonable amount of time to make up your mind if you want a baby or not, barring extenuating situations.

[Zerogouki]

It's not always about making up your mind. There are some congenital defects that aren't really noticeable until that far along into the pregnancy.

[DanDaMan]

It's not always about making up your mind. There are some congenital defects that aren't really noticeable until that far along into the pregnancy.

Let' say a white woman has an affair with a black man and gets pregnant... does she have the right to abort that child based on it's color?

[The Clockwork Rat]

does she have the right to abort that child based on it's color?

How is this a sensible question? She has a right to abort. I may not agree with her doing it, if she does it because her baby is going to be half-black, because it seems a bit ... racist, but I'm not going to refuse her right to abort. It sounds like you were trying to be clever, to catch out all those stupid "leftists"...

[DanDaMan]

So she, in your opinion, has every right to abort a child because it will be black. Ok.
If they find a genetic marker for homosexuality can she abort those gay cells?

[The Clockwork Rat]

So she, in your opinion, has every right to abort a child because it will be black. Ok.
If they find a genetic marker for homosexuality can she abort those gay cells?

Like I said, I may not agree with the reason why, but I won't stop anyone from aborting their child. If the woman started to campaign for other women to follow her example, I might find reason to criticise her more openly but otherwise, I would leave it to her personal choice. Are you trying to catch me out here?

[DanDaMan]

Like I said, I may not agree with the reason why, but I won't stop anyone from aborting their child. If the woman started to campaign for other women to follow her example, I might find reason to criticise her more openly but otherwise, I would leave it to her personal choice.

So aborting cells found to be gay is acceptable to you. OK
Just wanted to know.

[Wolfman]

When is it the case for fetuses? 3rd trimester?

And what determines how much of a "person" a being is?

Biologicly, you're not alive until the Third Trimester when it is possible to live outside the womb for any extended amount of time. Making the brain dead also not actually alive.

[The Clockwork Rat]

So aborting cells found to be gay is acceptable to you. OK

You're twisting my words here. Abortion is acceptable. I don't need or want to know why the woman wants it so if it is because she doesn't want a gay child, that's up to her. If it was my own partner who was considering aborting for that reason, I would have a huge problem with it. I don't think society should have power over such personal issues, whether it agrees or not.

I found your question interesting, I'm just disappointed that you are misinterpreting my answer.

[DanDaMan]

So aborting cells found to be gay is acceptable to you. OK

You're twisting my words here. Abortion is acceptable.

Not twisting your words. Just clarifying that you have no problem killing unborn children based on their "sexual preference".

I just have a hard time trying to figure out why Liberals think crushing the skulls and then sucking the brains out of the unborn is a constitutional right.
Since that happens some 4,000 times a day in America I have a hard time trying to understand why Liberals, versus the conservatives, are not called the party of death.

[Gork]

Not twisting your words. Just clarifying that you have no problem killing unborn children based on their "sexual preference".

You really do make pathetic, untenable statements.

He said over and over he had a problem with it, but he wouldn't stop her, unless she was having his baby. See, Liberals sometimes disagree with something on moral grounds but don't always believe in shoving their moralities down others' throats. This may be too hard for you to understand. Don't strain yourself. Your brain might smooth out and you'd cease to be a person.

[DanDaMan]

You really do make pathetic, untenable statements.

He said over and over he had a problem with it, but he wouldn't stop her, unless she was having his baby. See, Liberals sometimes disagree with something on moral grounds but don't always believe in shoving their moralities down others' throats. This may be too hard for you to understand. Don't strain yourself. Your brain might smooth out and you'd cease to be a person.

Try teaching a child that morality. It wont work. What they see and learn is indifference to life from inaction.
They learn your morals are hallow and have no meaning because your words are backed by inaction. Children learn their parents are hypocrites. They too then become their parents.

Just as with judging politicians... do not judge them by what they say... but by what they do. He does nothing. He teaches a callousness to life.