blungld said:
going4roses said:
I am pro-life!...and by pro-life I mean that collection of cells in a woman's womb that has the "potential" of being a human and through which I can control women, further theocracy, ascribe to hypocritical and expedient beliefs, foment rage, and consolidate power amongst loyalist single issue voters.
But once those cells actually are humans, I support war, death penalty, income inequality, guns on the street, climate denial, voter suppression, end to social programs, and now total disregard to the greatest pandemic in 100 years and the lives of our children. Just remember, this is what God wants, I am a good person, and we are the moral party protecting the sanitation...er the sanctity of human life.
Again not a serious take and more hyperbole and generalization dressed as thoughtful discussion.
For one, you conclude the main point of the debate - is a fetus a human life or just a potential for human life - and to determine that, we have to be in agreement on what constitute human life.
And war - do you never support war? What if Russia invaded Germany? What if China, through North Korea, invaded Japan and South Korea? Is your support for human life so great that you will say America should just stay out of it? Again, a statement from you that is not very thoughtful but dressed as if actually profound and morally superior.
Death penalty - quite a bit of Democrats are for death penalty, and quite of bit of Christian Republicans are against death penalty. What is your point there?
Income inequality - again, why is this a Republican and Democrat issue? Why hasn't the liberal California and New York government done more? If it is a matter of raising taxes, who says the state government cannot raise taxes and distribute more evenly to eliminate income gap? Why hasn't the liberal states with the highest income gap solved it? Why is this a Republican issue? Why not demand that our state government take more action to eliminate the gap created by the tech companies? Because it's easier to blame the federal government and Trump and play a game of my tribe versus your tribe?
Guns on the street. Are you suggesting we make guns illegal? Doesn't that require an amendment to the Constitution? Or do you respect the Constitutional process only part of the time when it fits your needs? If not, then isn't it a question of what is an over-reach and what is not in respecting the second amendment while putting in reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Climate denial - not sure anyone is denying climate. There is debate on whether we can make a dent in climate change sufficient to justify the proposed sacrifice. I mean, there is a whole spectrum - we can eliminate the entire human population, to shutting down economy (the one thing the SIP did was improve the level of pollution), to take less extreme measures, etc. Again a non-useful binary simplification on a question of degrees. Yes, there are extremists but that is the case on both sides.
Voter suppression - again the question of what type of safe guards are sufficient. I mean the least amount of voter suppression would be for people to submit their vote on a piece of paper and drop into a box, without any form of control that people are not voting more than once or that people who are not eligible are not voting. Isn't it a question of what is over-reach when putting guardrails against fraud versus a binary black and white voter suppression versus no control?
Have a serious discussion, please. Because nothing I have read from you recently is any more reasoned than what you rail against.