(03-16-2013 06:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:30 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:50 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Poltical. Read the tea leaves and saw it advantageous to switch.

Which is worse, switching for political reasons or switching for narcissistic ones? I'd go with political. Even if narcissistic decisions leave much to be desired, they still require a level of courage that political decisions don't.

Decisions should already be made taking into account what if your son or daughter told you that.
Shouldn't be a thought changer.

Ideally. But there is a big difference between "what I would think if that happened" and "well that happened." He might have very well thought that it wouldn't matter to him. Until it became real and actually did.

Decisions should also be made without taking into account the politics of the situation. I have more respect for someone who changes his position because of new experiences than for someone who changes his position because the polls are now going the other way.

As with any issue dealing with personal liberty. All I have to do is ask myself one question. Is the principle of non aggression being violated in this situation?

Now before someone decides to throw the abortion issue in my face, I will quickly explain my position. Killing of viable human violates that principle. I will not comment further than that.

This is pretty much where I come down on this.......

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

If you truly believe that our God is an omnipotent awesome God then you would know that there isn't a person on earth or in the womb that you could kill that God wants to live. There also isn't a person on this earth that you can keep living who God wants to die. We just aren't as important as we think that we are.

(03-16-2013 09:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If you truly believe that our God is an omnipotent awesome God then you would know that there isn't a person on earth or in the womb that you could kill that God wants to live. There also isn't a person on this earth that you can keep living who God wants to die. We just aren't as important as we think that we are.

I'm sure your comment will tame this discussion...

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

(03-16-2013 11:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

Because there are some areas which do not lend themselves to compromise, its sad but true.

Gay Marriage is *not* one of those areas. I'm with you on the solution even though I consider the act it self morally bankrupt. Simply allow all the same relational contracts and get hte word marriage completely out of government.

Abortion is one of those issues you can't really compromise on because it's either murder or it's not. If it's not murder than have at it up to whatever point it *is* murder. If it is murder you can't let it happen not matter the circumstances.

(03-16-2013 11:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

Because there are some areas which do not lend themselves to compromise, its sad but true.

Gay Marriage is *not* one of those areas. I'm with you on the solution even though I consider the act it self morally bankrupt. Simply allow all the same relational contracts and get hte word marriage completely out of government.

Abortion is one of those issues you can't really compromise on because it's either murder or it's not. If it's not murder than have at it up to whatever point it *is* murder. If it is murder you can't let it happen not matter the circumstances.

I agree. That is why I don't seek compromise now. It is simply not achievable today. I seek to eliminate as much harm as possible. Prevention is at this point the ONLY logical path for both sides to take. We should be striving to have zero unwanted pregnancies. Let's focus now on a goal that has an actual chance of decreasing harm.

(03-16-2013 11:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

Because there are some areas which do not lend themselves to compromise, its sad but true.

Gay Marriage is *not* one of those areas. I'm with you on the solution even though I consider the act it self morally bankrupt. Simply allow all the same relational contracts and get hte word marriage completely out of government.

Abortion is one of those issues you can't really compromise on because it's either murder or it's not. If it's not murder than have at it up to whatever point it *is* murder. If it is murder you can't let it happen not matter the circumstances.

Your ignore list is growing. Haha!

(03-17-2013 12:01 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

Because there are some areas which do not lend themselves to compromise, its sad but true.

Gay Marriage is *not* one of those areas. I'm with you on the solution even though I consider the act it self morally bankrupt. Simply allow all the same relational contracts and get hte word marriage completely out of government.

Abortion is one of those issues you can't really compromise on because it's either murder or it's not. If it's not murder than have at it up to whatever point it *is* murder. If it is murder you can't let it happen not matter the circumstances.

Your ignore list is growing. Haha!

Exile has done nothing in this debate to warrant that. His position has been principled yet gentlemen like. Anyone that had a problem with it is the one that should be on ignore..IMO.

(03-17-2013 12:09 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 12:01 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 11:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 09:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  That and the fact that this is one of the most intellectual dishonest arguments youll ever come across..

Ask a pro life person if they would be ok with adding 600K kids per year to the food stamp program if it meant abortion were outlawed and a huge majority would say *yes*

Ask a pro choice person if the funding for an extra 600K kids per year were made available for unplanned kids if that would make it ok to ban abortion and they would say no.

And....No one asks those like me who are not entrenched in an ideological position what they would be OK with. The lines are drawn in granite on both sides and I fully understand and respect both stances. This is why I take a "Bortz" on this and will not debate this issue if it gets even the slightest bit ugly. I prefer to concentrate on the underlying causes of the problem. I really believe this is our best avenue on both sides of the issue and I believe we all can agree that PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies is a valid goal to achieve. Does not prevention solve much of this problem?

I compare the abortion argument to that of global warming. We have the same entrenched factional arguments on this issue. No one ever just says..."I want clean air." If we seek to have clean air...does that not make the global warming issue moot?

Same thing applies to the original OP. Would not ENDING marriage licences in favor of "cohabitation contracts" end this debate. People can get married ceremonially in what ever manner they wish.

We have become a nation divided because we refuse to budge from our ideologies and seek solutions that solve problems for BOTH sides of issues without compromising their principles.

Because there are some areas which do not lend themselves to compromise, its sad but true.

Gay Marriage is *not* one of those areas. I'm with you on the solution even though I consider the act it self morally bankrupt. Simply allow all the same relational contracts and get hte word marriage completely out of government.

Abortion is one of those issues you can't really compromise on because it's either murder or it's not. If it's not murder than have at it up to whatever point it *is* murder. If it is murder you can't let it happen not matter the circumstances.

Your ignore list is growing. Haha!

Exile has done nothing in this debate to warrant that. His position has been principled yet gentlemen like. Anyone that had a problem with it is the one that should be on ignore..IMO.

He is the one that added to it. I've been on it for a while.

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

But who do you blame for it? The person who can't own up, the parents who failed to teach them proper morals, or the grandparents who failed to teach their kids how to raise kids properly?

(03-17-2013 08:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

But who do you blame for it? The person who can't own up, the parents who failed to teach them proper morals, or the grandparents who failed to teach their kids how to raise kids properly?

Assigning blame for non criminal acs is often a counterproductive practice since no amount of money is going to magically make the men of poor communities more likely to marry.

The problem with most of this can all be traced back to the break up of the family. Two paretns making minimum wage can do a whole lot better than one in terms of provision.

Two parents can do a better job of emotionally supporting the child because just one parent could so easily get burned out. When my wife was sick for a while I was a defacto single parent and it wore me to my bones, every moment I was exhausted.

Two parents can also do a better job of the meeting the education needs of children. both in terms of home learning (homework, reading, ...) and in terms of school involvement.

It's not often I'll agree a whole lot with Black Liberation Theology types but their belief that the answer to the AA's community woes has to come from within is indeed true.

There's no disagreement here. Single parent households miss out on a great deal, and most of that benefit extends far beyond the financial aspects...

Isn't his son gay? Anyway, I don't really care what he does. He's supporting his son. I really wish government would get out of marriage. Leave it up to the church and various religions. I personally disagree with gay marriage but to each his own right?


Sent from my iPad2 using Tapatalk

(03-17-2013 08:31 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.

But who do you blame for it? The person who can't own up, the parents who failed to teach them proper morals, or the grandparents who failed to teach their kids how to raise kids properly?

Assigning blame for non criminal acs is often a counterproductive practice since no amount of money is going to magically make the men of poor communities more likely to marry.

The problem with most of this can all be traced back to the break up of the family. Two paretns making minimum wage can do a whole lot better than one in terms of provision.

Two parents can do a better job of emotionally supporting the child because just one parent could so easily get burned out. When my wife was sick for a while I was a defacto single parent and it wore me to my bones, every moment I was exhausted.

Two parents can also do a better job of the meeting the education needs of children. both in terms of home learning (homework, reading, ...) and in terms of school involvement.

It's not often I'll agree a whole lot with Black Liberation Theology types but their belief that the answer to the AA's community woes has to come from within is indeed true.

It is what Bill Cosby has been preaching for decades. Unfortunately his message has fallen on death ears. For clarity...I see this an American problem that spans racial boundaries. The break up of the family and the lack of personal responsibility is not just bound to the AA community. My wife is the head of our local health department in our county. She will attest that they see plenty of caucasian underage girls coming in for pregnancy screening.

The question still remains. What do we do as a society to change this? Honestly...I am at a loss for and answer. I think it will have to be addressed on multiple fronts like we would a communicable disease or health risk issue. Pussyfooting around this issue has not worked. He has to be tackled head on.

(03-17-2013 08:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There's no disagreement here. Single parent households miss out on a great deal, and most of that benefit extends far beyond the financial aspects...

I'm not sure how you create something that was never there. The 2 parent household in the AA community has never really existed. From the age of slavery, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives have been split apart. The burden of raising families has always been on the women.

(03-17-2013 09:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There's no disagreement here. Single parent households miss out on a great deal, and most of that benefit extends far beyond the financial aspects...

I'm not sure how you create something that was never there. The 2 parent household in the AA community has never really existed. From the age of slavery, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives have been split apart. The burden of raising families has always been on the women.

And while women are good at knowing what they want in a man, they know little about what makes a man, and raising a son to become the man they want is a nearly impossible task for most women...

(03-17-2013 09:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 09:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There's no disagreement here. Single parent households miss out on a great deal, and most of that benefit extends far beyond the financial aspects...

I'm not sure how you create something that was never there. The 2 parent household in the AA community has never really existed. From the age of slavery, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives have been split apart. The burden of raising families has always been on the women.

And while women are good at knowing what they want in a man, they know little about what makes a man, and raising a son to become the man they want is a nearly impossible task for most women...

I don't think anyone could argue that having the guidance of both parents is not the optimal environment to raise a child.

True that...

(03-17-2013 09:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 09:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There's no disagreement here. Single parent households miss out on a great deal, and most of that benefit extends far beyond the financial aspects...

I'm not sure how you create something that was never there. The 2 parent household in the AA community has never really existed. From the age of slavery, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives have been split apart. The burden of raising families has always been on the women.

And while women are good at knowing what they want in a man, they know little about what makes a man, and raising a son to become the man they want is a nearly impossible task for most women...

It's also factually incorrect to say two parent households were never there, they were never down at the level where white families were because of the post slavery world but they were begining to approach it. Through the early part of the 1900's and started a small uptick during the second world war and Korean War conflict before the great society blew them through the roof.