The Democrat Utopia

Waldo said:
How will trains cross oceans (maybe his point)?AOC says
Click to expand...


The right-wing anti-tax group said that. AOC didn't say it and it's not part of her Green New Deal.

In the FAQ TG posted that section is under the national infrastructure heading. It's pretty clear that's a domestic proposal.

cWqGVTN.gif


 
TGHusker said:
OK we are arguing over a phrase and missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying.  We are talking about the fetus and not individual cells  - and maybe there is a better way of stating without saying 'any stage'. When I use the term 'any stage' I'm not talking about a single cell or an organ - I'm talking about a life form that in itself has within itself the ability to develop and grow to a full human. Sperm can't and an organ cannot.  So if you have a better phrase, I'm more than happy to use it.
Click to expand...
I agree that were arguing over the phrasing and definitions, but in this case it matters. If we had telepathy or some other way of communicating True Meaning, then we wouldn't have this problem, but we're restricted by the language we're using to communicate.

I understand that you think anything that can develop into a human person has certain rights and should be protected. I don't think possibility of development is a sufficient condition, but rather actually being a human person is what matters. Just as you see my view as a support of baby killing, I see your view as a call to protect body parts as if they're people. It doesn't mean we can't ever come to some sort of agreement or compromise on the issue, but it highlights how hard it would be for us to figure that out because we're starting from such different places.

Regarding the bold 'fear mongering' quote look up Peter Singer - no small voice in progressive circles.  You will find quotes by him on post birth abortion.  The 'logical conclusion' is if we take many pro-abortion arguments to their logical conclusion we eventually end up with his world view.  This may not be the world view of most pro-choice people.  However, it can become the slippery slope ending for those who want unrestricted abortions to be the rule of the land. 
Click to expand...
Yep, Singer takes the unrestricted expanding circle argument to the extreme - it's ridiculous and I don't support it. But that's because I don't have the same expanding circle issue because I don't want unrestricted abortions, and I think there are very few that do.

 
RedDenver said:
I agree that were arguing over the phrasing and definitions, but in this case it matters. If we had telepathy or some other way of communicating True Meaning, then we wouldn't have this problem, but we're restricted by the language we're using to communicate.

I understand that you think anything that can develop into a human person has certain rights and should be protected. I don't think possibility of development is a sufficient condition, but rather actually being a human person is what matters. Just as you see my view as a support of baby killing, I see your view as a call to protect body parts as if they're people. It doesn't mean we can't ever come to some sort of agreement or compromise on the issue, but it highlights how hard it would be for us to figure that out because we're starting from such different places.

Yep, Singer takes the unrestricted expanding circle argument to the extreme - it's ridiculous and I don't support it. But that's because I don't have the same expanding circle issue because I don't want unrestricted abortions, and I think there are very few that do.
Click to expand...
I do think there can be found a reasonable path forward on this issue that both sides can 'compromise on'. But it has been 'in the works' for 50 years almost - but mostly by both sides yelling past each other.  For simplicity sake I think pro-lifers see 'right to life' as starting in the womb while pro-choicers see it as post birth.  There may be a reasonable compromise that won't fit the 'purist' in either camp but that can bring civility to the argument - and remove it from the 'argument' category to the 'needing support' category where it should be - support for the child and the mother. 

 
TGHusker said:
I do think there can be found a reasonable path forward on this issue that both sides can 'compromise on'. But it has been 'in the works' for 50 years almost - but mostly by both sides yelling past each other.  For simplicity sake I think pro-lifers see 'right to life' as starting in the womb while pro-choicers see it as post birth.  There may be a reasonable compromise that won't fit the 'purist' in either camp but that can bring civility to the argument - and remove it from the 'argument' category to the 'needing support' category where it should be - support for the child and the mother. 
Click to expand...
I hope so. And for the record, I don't think 'right to life' starts at birth but sometime before, so maybe we aren't as far apart as it might appear.

 
RedDenver said:
The basic idea is that the workers collectively own the company they work at. Another way to view it is if we employed the idea of democracy to the work place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
Click to expand...
Ok like the local Farmers Coop.  Owned by the farmers and managed by their votes, etc.   Many companies have been successful when they are 'employee owned' as the employee becomes sensitive to profit and loss issues and does the best for the company & service their customer's with excellence  because they truly have an ownership stake.  It becomes self motivating.   

 
RedDenver said:
I hope so. And for the record, I don't think 'right to life' starts at birth but sometime before, so maybe we aren't as far apart as it might appear.
Click to expand...
Give us a beer and we'll solve it   :cheers

Actually, this is one of those areas that neither 'side' really wants to settle.  Far too long ago, it became the red meat issue that they could not afford to settle.  So many of these issues never get settled because it doesn't serve the political elite well and their power base.  They need the red meat for fund raising (pro-life and pro-choice organizations) and for campaign funding.  The Republican party uses it as a wedge 'plantation' political issue to keep all of us pro-lifers on the GOP plantation.

 
RedDenver said:
Then the medical research and the death would NOT be independent, and I'd be opposed to it. But I haven't seen any evidence that they're not independent.

No, that's the exact case I'm saying is no different. Unless someone is also against murder victims being used for medical research, but that's a different issue than abortion.

This goes back to the research not being independent of the deaths, which I'd oppose whether it's abortions, euthanasia, executions, etc.
Click to expand...
They are completely different. 

With an abortion, the death is not of natural causes and the death is produced on purpose and an industry begins it that financially benefits from it. 

A death from someone older has none of that. Most would be dead from natural causes. The only thing similar would be if someone died from capital punishment. 

The only reason to equate the two the two is to fit into an agenda. 

 
Back
Top