Four more years!

[Awesoman]

No but there is a magic wand! But it's often used inappropriately! Doh!!!  

You win this round, Erik...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I consider myself pro-life, with a few obvious exceptions.  I am not religious.  I simply believe that if a couple is sexually active, then they are taking the responsibility with it.  

But this is inconsistent with reality. As is well established by now, as women have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information, fertility rates go down and abortion goes down, and childen are better cared for and women are healthier. There are ways of saving hundreds of thousands of lives and actively reducing abortion levels that are well under social control that don't violate women's right to choose. But getting to that point demands an acknowledgement of reality - that being sexually responsible is a luxury that a particular class of society can have and that that luxury doesn't apply to everyone. So if you're serious about both being pro-life and being responsible, then to me the sensible option is not to oppose a woman's right to choose.

And this is where the impass is:  Those who are pro-life aren't actively trying to deny women of anything; they simply want to protect the life of an unborn baby.  Unfortunately, the issue has been spun out of control that this is conflicting with women's rights. I get that viewpoint, but simply reject that this is anyone's true intent.  Yet those who are pro-life are considered "women haters" by the pro-choice group.  This is unproductive and downright stupid.

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

[Awesoman]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about? 

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

[Awesoman]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about? 

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

Societies such as New York...? 

http://nyc41percent.com/

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about?  

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

Societies such as New York...?  

http://nyc41percent.com/

Well, look at the numbers - if you look at where the statistics link, you will find that abortions in New York are far more common within communities with less access to opportunity, education, and so on. So, African Americans make up 46% of abortions in New York while caucasions make up 11%. Is that a coincidence?

[Awesoman]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about?  

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

Societies such as New York...?  

http://nyc41percent.com/

Well, look at the numbers - if you look at where the statistics link, you will find that abortions in New York are far more common within communities with less access to opportunity, education, and so on. So, African Americans make up 46% of abortions in New York while caucasions make up 11%. Is that a coincidence?

Points noted and I agree with you to some degree.  But regardless, how does having less opportunity or being less fortunate make abortions any more acceptable or justifiable? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Points noted and I agree with you to some degree.  But regardless, how does having less opportunity or being less fortunate make abortions any more acceptable or justifiable?  

Oh, it doesn't. Not at all.

But it's just the reality that there is a correlation between abortion and lack of resources, opportunity education, information. So it seems to me that if one is serious about reducing abortion then this is the area that you look to change, whether or not you are concerned with the general freedom of society to be able to have some control over their own lives. I think that changing that would ultimately profoundly reduce abortion and also fertility rates but it would improve obstetric care which would also work towards preventing unintended terminations and to me this is a far superior option to simply outlawing abortion, which merely works to drive the industry underground and increase the risk of health issues not just for women but also even for unborn children in general.

[rab2591]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about?  

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

Societies such as New York...?  

http://nyc41percent.com/

Well, look at the numbers - if you look at where the statistics link, you will find that abortions in New York are far more common within communities with less access to opportunity, education, and so on. So, African Americans make up 46% of abortions in New York while caucasions make up 11%. Is that a coincidence?

Points noted and I agree with you to some degree.  But regardless, how does having less opportunity or being less fortunate make abortions any more acceptable or justifiable? 

No. By adopting the stance that children ARE sacred...nay...that EVERY human life is sacred, I think then people would start trying to make a better society.

If we can't treat our babies in the womb like the priceless treasures they are then how are we to treat the LIVING this way?
_____

Again I'll say: I'm not a religious nut at all (agnostic actually). But I agree that ALL life deserves a chance to live. I wholeheartedly agree with Rocknroll that humans need to start making it easier for children to be raised on this planet. But I also don't think that until that time do we ignore the sanctity of life either.

[Awesoman]

I don't think there is an impass or at least don't understand what you mean when you use the term. Like I said, if you want to "protect the life of an unborn baby" there are plenty of ways to do it that don't deny women the right to choose. And in fact if your position is solely protecting the life of the unborn then there are plenty of issues that are of immediate concern that are well within our power, like significantly reducing poverty, and reducing rates of malnutrition, allowing for easier access to education, etc. - these things are instrumental in protecting the life of unborn children.

I don't think anyone is against solving these issues you mention.  Yes, they would probably help eliminate many abortions.  But even if we resolved said issues, you still have plenty of couples whom accidently get pregnant and can't/don't want to have the child and would rather abort it, thus making said issues moot.  Isn't that what the "right to choose" is all about?  

Again though the number of couples "whom accidentally get pregnant" is reduced substantially in societies that have more opportunities, more education, have access to better medical care, education, and family planning information so I don't think that does make "said issues moot." Rather, I think that's why they are relevant.

Societies such as New York...?  

http://nyc41percent.com/

Well, look at the numbers - if you look at where the statistics link, you will find that abortions in New York are far more common within communities with less access to opportunity, education, and so on. So, African Americans make up 46% of abortions in New York while caucasions make up 11%. Is that a coincidence?

Points noted and I agree with you to some degree.  But regardless, how does having less opportunity or being less fortunate make abortions any more acceptable or justifiable? 

No. By adopting the stance that children ARE sacred...nay...that EVERY human life is sacred, I think then people would start trying to make a better society.

If we can't treat our babies in the womb like the priceless treasures they are then how are we to treat the LIVING this way?
_____

Again I'll say: I'm not a religious nut at all (agnostic actually). But I agree that ALL life deserves a chance to live. I wholeheartedly agree with Rocknroll that humans need to start making it easier for children to be raised on this planet. But I also don't think that until that time do we ignore the sanctity of life either.

Well I think we're all in agreement here.  Let's go grab a beer.  :-)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Does this mean we go over to the what beer do you drink thread?

[rab2591]

Sounds good to me!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I just popped open a Gulden Draak!  Will see you guys at the bar 

[Awesoman]

I just popped open a Gulden Draak!  Will see you guys at the bar 

I hear that after 3 or 4 bottles of O'Doul's, Hypehat will be swearin' like a sailor.   

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I have nothing to add to this, so here's some unrelated pictures

[Bean Bag]

There's a whole world outside of the faculty lounge, rockandroll!!    

Sure. So for example, there is the hospital lounge where I spent nearly every day of my life for three months (while undertaking a PhD degree) because my daughter was born three and a half months premature, weighing a pound and a half. Of course, after you are born, you inevitably lose weight so she ended up dropping down to a pound but by that time she started suffering from a level 3 brain bleed so we had to focus on other things. That was in October of 2010. Our New Year's Eve that year was watching our daughter slip into the early stages of meningitis about a month before she was supposed to come home. But eventually she pulled through and she just recently celebrated her 2nd birthday and appears to be in perfect health for a child her age (with our without prematurity). Hospital lounges are something that I had been familiar with already since my mother died of ovarian cancer at the age of 32 when I was three and half years old. She had been diagnosed with it 6 months after I was born.

I don't tell you this because I feel particularly special in this regard. Quite the oppose - I know that there are plenty of stories like this, and, in fact, I have only given you a very abridged version of my own experiences.

But I will say this, and you should follow it closely because these are the last words I will say to you: You are a piece of s#!t and just because you are so incapable of actually coming up with a response to what I have actually said and therefore rely on using the work that I do as some sort of dim-witted attempt to de-legitimize me, this ultimately gives you exactly zero grounds to even begin to comment on my experience with so-called "reality." You know exactly NOTHING about me, my experiences, or my life. And that you have even begun to presume that you do know something given the experiences that I have had is exactly what makes you scum. I have absolutely nothing more to say to you because you disgust me. And when you try to belittle my experiences with reality as you have done here and so have others, you unknowingly belittle the experiences that I described above and that is offensive both to me and my daughter who I watched struggle to stay alive for months. Now I most likely experienced reality in those three months more so than you probably will in your entire lifetime but I have never once used that as a way to try to de-legitimize your own points. I could have. But I am better than that. My hope is that you will say absolutely nothing more to me because that's the only response you will get from me from now on.

What, you didn't think I was going to respond? 

I was going to come on here today and praise you for your demeanor -- as being a fun person to spar with.  But then I go and read this.  I'm not sure why you are telling me this story...but I do understand you were attempting to directly insult me.  I'm a little disappointed but not surprised.

While attacking me personally is a little bit of diversion for you -- (can we agree, it's certainly not your bread n' butter?) -- it is actually a popular tactic.  Do you really think I am that unreachable or have you simply reached a limit of your own?  By my response, I've dismissed the likelihood of the former as a rational possibility.

Regardless...you can take comfort in knowing that, despite your limits of compassion for me -- I have an unlimited supply for you.

[Bean Bag]

There is no shortage of idiots on either side:


http://liberal-agenda.com/2012/11/watch-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-the-mind-of-a-romney-supporter/

Well, of course.  But, let's be real.  One side is in the business of keepin'em dum and givin'em stuff -- so they continue to vote "Obama In Prezidennt."

Huge difference, I think.  I find it sad and immoral -- if you "axe" me.  Quite the opposite of compassion.  The resulting efforts of a bunch of charlatans.  While it's fun to expose these faux-compassionate "leaders" as such, I look at all the people who've they treated like animals -- left holding worthless beans, wondering when the drought will end.

[Jason]

The sad part is that most people don't even know that the welfare programs were designed by Democrats to keep the minorities down. How appropriate for the "party of tolerance".

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

There is no shortage of idiots on either side:


http://liberal-agenda.com/2012/11/watch-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-the-mind-of-a-romney-supporter/

Well, of course.  But, let's be real.  One side is in the business of keepin'em dum and givin'em stuff -- so they continue to vote "Obama In Prezidennt."

Huge difference, I think.  I find it sad and immoral -- if you "axe" me.  Quite the opposite of compassion.  The resulting efforts of a bunch of charlatans.  While it's fun to expose these faux-compassionate "leaders" as such, I look at all the people who've they treated like animals -- left holding worthless beans, wondering when the drought will end.

Keeping WHO dumb and givin WHO stuff?

Same logic applies, as the only reason you guys are screaming and crying about welfare and food stamps, employment insurance etc is because your idols on the right are screaming and crying about it and idiots in the video I posted are screaming about it BECAUSE..... you see it's a big circle and you're caught in it. And you talk about compassion knowing full well that you have NONE for anyone on any scale, top or bottom. Just admit it..... Look at the margin Obama won by: not a landslide, sure, but do you REALLY believe that every vote cast for the guy was by some poor minority on welfare? C'mon. Why don't you guys just shut the F up about all that stuff anyhow? How many people do you know on welfare or on food stamps? How many friends of yours, or family? I'd hazard to guess none. Just be thankful you're doing OK and have some humility. But, I tell you what: I can't count the number of bosses I've had over the years or currently who've been on unemployment at some point in their lives or on food stamps as young married couples, etc. The CFO of NBC (where I work) tells all new hires the same rags to riches story and damn if it ain't inspiring... Don't drink ALL the kool-aid, kids. And do you really think a 5 year old kid in some hood gives an sh*t if the mulch he's being fed comes from a program designed to keep his kind down? I call bullshit on that. As I've said before, this faux moralizing by you guys is disgusting. It's like listening to Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez and John Wayne Gacy sitting around a table and black slapping each other on their world views.... I don't know why anyone's even bothering. There is plenty of suffering and misery to go around and here you guys are sitting there on your fat asses smiling smugly.

[Jason]

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/11/insanity-papa-johns-olive-garden-others-attacked-as-racist-for-anticipated-responses-to-obamacare/

Seriously...you liberals had better UNFUCK YOURSELVES. You don't have a right to the product of someone else's labor. Health care is not a right. If you work for a company that offers it, great. But forcing companies to buy a product is beyond the pale. I know that the Food Stamp President (much like his idiot supporters) doesn't understand that, but hey. No one's holding a gun to your heads and forcing you to work a job that doesn't offer benefits. So shut the f*** up and get another fucking job that pays benefits, you lazy fucking liberal pieces of sh*t.

And WHAT in the blue Christ of c*** f*** is "racist pizza"?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

For someone who cries endlessly about his precious rights, you just feel completely comfortable rattling off a list of what other people DO NOT have a right to???

C'mon man, join the human race or build yourself a supersonic rocket ship and, oh, but wait:


"Let me take you on a little trip
My supersonic ship's at your disposal
If you feel so inclined. Well alright.
We're gonna travel faster than light
So do up your overcoat tight
And you'll go anywhere you want to decide. Well alright.
Too many people side by side
Got no place to hide.

On my supersonic rocket ship
Nobody has to be hip
Nobody needs to be out of sight. Out of sight.
Nobody's gonna travel second class
There'll be equality
And no suppression of minorities. Well alright.
We'll take this planet, shake it round
And turn it upside down.
My supersonic rocket ship.

It ain't no magic, ain't no lie,
You'll laugh so loud you'll cry.
Up and down, round and round
On my supersonic rocket ship.

Let me take you on a little trip
My supersonic ship's at your disposal
If you feel so inclined. Well alright.
Nobody's gonna travel second class
There'll be equality
And no suppression of minorities. Well alright.
Let me take you on a little trip
On my supersonic rocket ship."

Ole, Ray and you might have some major disagreements.....

Racist pizza??? Ya got me? What, do the green peppers hate the olives because they're black???

And you really need to quit plugging this paranoid idea of what a liberal is and you need to understand the vast difference between a liberal, a socialist or a communist. I mean, I know you DO understand the difference but you and your like just love to lump them all together just like the far left loves to lump racists, rednecks, serial killers, nazis, teabaggers, and Republicans all together. None of it is far. Most so called liberals I know (myself included) value hard work and earning your keep and don't advocate endless handouts. Only difference is we understand that there will always be poor people and those people deserve not to have to die in the street. Simple as that.

[Jason]

For someone who cries endlessly about his precious rights, you just feel completely comfortable rattling off a list of what other people DO NOT have a right too???

Your rights end where mine begin. Health care isn't a right. And no one has a right to health insurance simply because he or she is employed. Those benefits are a PRIVILEGE, not a right. If I agree to pay benefits to my employees, it's a non-issue; I already determined I can and want to pay those benefits. However, if I cannot or do not want to pay benefits, the government forcing me to do so under the pain of a penalty is an unjust deprivation of the product of my labor and a threat to my business.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

A threat to WHAT business exactly?

And no one's even arguing with you anyway. You just need to stop being so ugly about this stuff.

And the only reason you have any freaking rights is because you are in a structured society that places a value on the word, otherwise it would be guys with more guns than you taking your damn rights from you and then making you lick their boots.

And we are also in a society that places the lowest possible value on labor performed, so don't try and pull that sh*t!

[Jason]

A threat to WHAT business exactly.

And no one's even arguing with you anyway. You just need to stop being so ugly about this stuff.

I was using it as an example.

As far as being ugly about it...the people who support bullshit like Obamacare are the people who are supporting the destruction of the American job market. These are, coincidentally, the same people who bitch and moan left and right about their inability to find jobs. Gee, I wonder why? If I said "don't worry baby, everything will be all right", I'd be lying.

For the record, I work for a company that DOES pay benefits and I'm lucky to have that privilege.

[Jason]

And the only reason you have any freaking rights is because you are in a structured society that places a value on the word, otherwise it would be guys with more guns than you taking your damn rights from you and then making you lick their boots.

And we are also in a society that places the lowest possible value on labor performed, so don't try and pull that sh*t!

You're right...except in the case of business owners, they ARE having their rights taken away from them. The labor theory of value is a farce.