The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white. A more liberal way of thinking breaks down the problem and says "what if".

The fact is that while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience, the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abortion was always legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy. What Roe V Wade did, was makit it legal to abort for sheer convenience.

"The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white"

I would state that is a virtue of conservative thinking. In my opinion, there are moral absolutes in our world. The problem with liberal thinking, is that it's based on the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it, anything goes".

"while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience"

Why use the word "may"? There's zero confusion here, the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, every study shows that. So if you think that convenience abortions are an abuse, does that mean you think they shoiuld be illegal?

"the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take"

For whom i sit the best option? Not the baby. You're saying that one person (the mother) can do anything she wants, without regards to others, when it's her 'best option'? Using that logic, why don't we legalize slavery again, because cheap labor may be the 'best option' for the plantatoion owner?

Conservatives tend to believe that there are 2 people to consider in this equation, Nebe. Despite what Sea Dangkes says, the pro-life poeition isn't designed for the intent to enslave the mother. It's to protect the other person involved.

We're way off track here, but it's not about the general concept of "choice". We all favor criminal laws that limit the "choices" one person can make, if that choice would hurt someone else. Every single one of us agrees on that, and i don't think that makes any of us "anti-choice". This issue, then, is only about one thing - whether or not the baby represents "someone else" who has dignity, value, and worth. I believe the baby does have dignity and worth, and for that, Sea Dangles compares me to the Taliban.

Again, in that scenario, abortion was laways legal. Most pro-lifers would be thrilled to pass a law keeping abortion legal in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mom is in jeopardy.

"When you know you have a baby with horrible birth defects, there should be a right to choose"

And who gets to decide when a human being is sufficiently perfect to be granted life, and who isn't? And if that's the barometer we use, what about kids who become "defected" after they are born, why can't we kill them then?

You are focusing on the exceptions to the rule. How about the much more common scenario, where a healthy woman chooses to have sex with someone, gets pregnant, and simply doesn't want to deal with the aggravations of being pregnant? In your opinion, should that be legal, or not? Because if you say that shouldn't be legal, I have news for you - you agree with the majority of conservatives on this issue.

Slavery is legal Jim. It's just done very stealthy. It's called wage stagnation with inflated living costs. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, as opposed to "conservative thinking" in which words in a legal sense (the sense Jim was using with the word slavery) have black and white definitions, you prefer the "more liberal way of thinking" and use the word slavery in a "what if" sense--what if slavery is anything that puts a stress or discomfort or economic pressure on someone.

Or, rather than just using the word in a "more" liberal way, Why not totally separate from "conservative thinking" and be the ultimate "liberal" (in terms of how you once defined the distinction) and be "creative" rather than dogmatic and use words, such as slavery, in a poetic or metaphorical sense. Why not go whole hog and say that the word can mean whatever you want it to mean?

That is, after all, how we have "progressed" from what progressives considered a dogmatic, black and white, constitutional form of government into the ultimate "liberal" fiat-to-suit-the-moment form of rule. By "free" and creative "what if" interpretation of the words in the Constitution it was, and is, used as a pretense of legality (actually removing the "conservative" black and white from legality and making it more liberal) to hide what was and is actually a "creative" rewriting of the document.

Ironically, "conservatives," using liberal linguistics would say that this liberally created system of government is slavery. And they would have a stronger case that it is than the what if slavery is whatever you want it to be argument that you used here. We are not legally bound to wage stagflation and inflated living costs. We are not under the threat of fines, imprisonment, or death if we, as many do, find ways to cope with or transcend that condition. But those who transgress the abundant and arbitrary fiat rules of so-called "liberal" government can be subjected to slavish punishment.

Ironically, again, constitutionalism limited the ability of government to "enslave" us and provided means, by consent of the people, to remove despotic rules. Progressivism, on the other hand expands the ability of the government to enslave us. Even to the point of the unlimited ability to do so.

And, ironically again, the wage stagflation and inflated living costs are not a result of "conservative" free market forces, but are brought about by "liberal" manipulation and progressive control of the market. Free market forces would not sustain inflated living costs without rising wages. The only way such a condition can be maintained is by government control and manipulation. Government control and manipulation of the market is not constitutional "conservative thinking." It is the essence of progressive thought.

Jim has a valuable faith based opinion. He believes what he believes. This is not a new topic. I just think he is an extremist whack job. But he has a right to opine. It is a chicken / egg type of discussion to put it simply. But it is a hot topic, lets just disagee and move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was just reading about the brick making kilns in Pakistan. They pay their workers hardly anything. When a worker's family member has a medical emergency the brick kiln owner will give them a loan as a bond. Then the owner sells that bond to another brick kiln for double and then they sell it again for double. The worker is forced to pay off that bond and the result is legalized slavery.
Slavery has many forms. Just ask any submissive bible thumping stay at home housewife with an alcoholic husband with a heavy hand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree Jim, all this so called free thinking and rejecting morals started in the 60s.
Everybody who was saying "if it feels good do it" wanted to have everybody else join in so it could become OK and guiltless whether it be drugs free sex or whatever.

The 60s generation is now in control and have carried their liberal philosophy with them still saying "if it feels good do it ",as long that no one else get's hurt.

Well people do get hurt by this behavior. Drug use prevents people from facing their problems, breaks up families , causes crime, killings and increase taxes for re-hab and law enforcement.
Free sex causes unwanted pregnancy, one parent families, abortion and taxes to treat aids and need of planned parenthood to "solve?" the problem.

Common sense says others are always affected by "if it feels good do it."

I am guessing you haven't watched the movie foot loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, slavery can be reduced in form to a black and white legal definition, or can expand in form to whatever "what if" definition you desire. You can ultimately say that life is slavery and only death can set you free. Or, you might say that life frees you from death. You can take it anyway you want. There are no limits the creative forms the word slavery can take. But in order to have a cohesive conversation, the same form should be used by all parties. Or, the discussion can take on a liberal escape from conservative black and white and dissolve into a creatively beautiful chaos. And the fabulous beauty of that is that everyone with his personal form will be satisfied with his own righteousness.

As for the Pakistan brick making thing . . . is that a result of what we consider a form of conservative free market, or is there a strong component of government and cultural control?

Oh snap. More on slavery.

For profit prisons that are independently owned. That's true American slavery right there and a big reason why the war on drugs is such a sham.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Nebe;1079590]When uncle touch too much knocks up his 14 year old niece, there should be a right to choose. QUOTE]

Confused, U talking about Josh Duggar or Jared Fogle ........:)....LMAO

They are not truly "independently" owned. They are government contractors. They are paid by government. They, in effect, are government subsidiaries handling government "property." They neither produce nor sell the "property." They rent their own property to house government "property." They are government warehouses contracted by private entities.

This is not conservative free market. The for profit prisons cannot make arrests or hold trials or exact punishments other than what the government prescribes. They are not a private police force. They are a government concoction in order to reduce government expenditure. The use of the term profit is, in a what if sense, being used just as it can be used by government prisons using prisoners to produce various items such as licenses which can be sold at higher prices to the rest of us. This is a market at the behest and control of government. Though the contractors can compete for the contracts, the government has no competitors. This is not conservative free market capitalism. This is government controlled market. In a constitutional system, people cannot be considered property sold to the highest (or lowest in this case) bidder. This tends more toward the Orwellian form--in which direction progressivism takes us.

No I haven't, just using my life experiences having been in my 20's during the 60s. Doubt a movie could tell me something I don't know. A movie is just that, a movie. :)
A lot of movies are made to be controversial to bring in the big bucks to Hollywood.

I'd rather trust what I lived at the time.

Nebe, always willing to learn, I read and watched the trailer about the 1985
movie Foot Loose.Nothing new here just another teenage rebellion movie,
not much different than the 1955 James Dean movie Rebel Without a Cause which played in my High School years.

We rebelled at the 1960 Newport Jazz Festival and we were cleared off the island by the National Guard,
a good time, along with a lot of rock and roll and jazz concerts, but so what.

Everybody has their rebel years, the difference imho, were most of the 40s-50s
generation quickly became mature responsible citizens while many of the 60s plus generations
are still trying to live there teenage years. Immaturity at it's best. Rock on. :)

interesting use of words

Confirmation from a doctor, that when babies are aborted at PP and dissected for harvestable tissue, that sometimes the heart is still beating after the abortion is complete, and after the baby is born. Heart still beating on this baby, when they cut through its face to get the brain. Sounds like an account of what the Japanese were doing in the early 1940s.

What progressive thinking, I suppose, right Nebe? Maybe I'm too "black and white", but I would prefer that if the baby is born alive, that the harvest is called off and the baby is cared for. Because after it's outside the womb, why is the mom still in charge of saying it's OK to kill it, and if a Mom can do THAT, why can't said Mom decide after the baby is 2 years old, that she wants to kill it. How is this an issue of "women's health", after the baby is born?

You know who would be OK with this? Our President, because when he was a state senator in IL, it was found out that some babies who survived abortions were being killed after they were out of the womb. Twice legislation came to Obama's desk that would have ended that barbarity. Twice he worked to block it.

Mother's health? Woman's ability to take control of her own body? Or infanticide?

The video isn't foolproof, but it should be looked into.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/19...video/?ref=yfp

Barbaric, where's the Liberal love?
It's murder, how can anyone justify it?

We are becoming a culture where that's not shocking or appalling. I bet Eisenhower is up there looking down at us, shaking his head, wondering what the hell it is that he fought for.

In China, in accordance with their 1 baby policy, they will sometimes drag a pregnant woman, against her will, to have a state-ordered abortion. Barbaric, right? But if that baby is born alive, it is required to be cared for. In other words, on this issue, the Chinese are more human than we are. Lovely.

If what is claimed in the video is accurate (and it may not be), that is barbaric. When people speak up against that, Hilary will say that we are waging a war on women, and that we don't care about women's health.

That's about as dishonest as it gets. That, and when asked if her server was wiped clean, she looked dumbfounded and asked "what, do you mean with a cloth?"

yeah, that's who I want at the helm.

Spence, you defend this how, exactly? Tell me why this behavior is not only not barbaric, but that if I had the ability to think elegantly and progressively, I'd see that this is, in fact, a cause for celebration.

When we cannot agree that this is immoral, I honestly have no idea what unites us as a country anymore. And I mean that.

We have lost our moral compass.
We were united when we had a cause of fighting for freedom around the world
and helping wherever we were needed.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

this is the result of ignoring what is clearly black and white and asking "what if" too frequently and then trying to support or defend "what if" because we think that the ability to ask "what if" rather than see black and white makes one smarter than those who don't need to ask "what if" :) ...... when my kids ask "what if"...it's usually because they don't have enough information, life experience or understanding to come to a conclusion or they are trying to get around what is clearly black and white for their own benefit

"this is the result of ignoring what is clearly black and white and asking "what if" too frequently "

You will never make a more astute post. Asking "what if" doesn't automatically bestow on someone, more sophisticated thinking than those who see an issue in black and white. Not every human impulse is a cause for celebration.

There are moral absolutes...

if you live your life in black and white and ignore the what ifs, your going to walk into a lot of walls.

and if you are so engrossed in your "what if' world that you ignore the black and white reality, you could walk right off of a cliff .....



"what if" we apply the left's attitudes toward abortion to the illegal immigration problem...call it "Planned Citizenhood"...there's a new opportunity for an agency...black and white would say " yeah, i think it's wrong to kill people for crossing the border illegally"...."what if " would try to rationalize the reasons and advantages ignoring the right and wrong....

Nebe, what's your opinion on cutting through the face of a baby with a beating heart, to extract its brain? "What if" that's actually happening? Does that bother you?

It's fine to ask "what if" sometimes, as you can't achieve discovery without it. But there are issues that have zero moral ambiguity. I would think that at the very top of that list, would be harvesting the brain from a living human baby. But liberals don't concede that's wrong. And I don't get it.

Do I think it's wrong? Yes.
The cold hard fact is this... The fetus was going to be aborted no matter what. Why not use it to the greatest possible benefit? I believe that is the logic here.
I'm a dad.... I chose life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What if" life itself is tenuous and precious?

"What if" any notion of the sanctity of life is subject to the greatest possible harm from not only accepting the fact that an innocent living human being is "going to be aborted no matter what" but from also accepting that body parts from a living human being can be extracted against its will for some possible, yet unknown, so-called benefit?

"What if" life is not to be seen as merely "black and white" existence opposed to non-existence? "What if" their is a "creative" beauty in its creation and a "black and white" nihilistic emptiness to its "black and white" destruction?

"What If" life itself has no claim to our rational or creative thoughts, impulses, or actions. If so, what is the point of destroying it for some unknown "greatest possible benefit" to it?

What if the Nazis and Mengele were right?

I don't believe that's accurate. Abortion has been legal to protect the life of the mother, but not always in cases of rape and incest.

Let me take a page out of your book.

"What if", instead of boring through a living baby's face to get it's brain, it was saved? "What if" after being saved, it went to medical school and cured cancer? Or became an actuary, or an artist?