Government Should Stay Out Of The Wombs Of The Nation

[rednxrule]

future put out the simple solution. but, the feds gotta avert from logic to keep control of any money and decision a citizen wants to make. logic is no longer a factor in government at the fed level. also, they are all progressives (racists) on the hill, and would exteminate millions if they could get away with it. only difference between obama and hitler is gender. hitler had balls at least, ol' bamy is a pussy, or more to the point a cunt.

[JMBSM61]

I have thought long and hard on this subject. I used to say I was pro choice but personally believed abortion was wrong. I have changed my view over the years. The conclusion that I have come to is that I cannot be wishy washy on this. I have to come down on one side or the other. I have made my decision on this. I believe life begins at conception and to kill a fetus is to kill a child. Everyone has to make their own decision on this. It is a hard subject to tackle.

[jxwhit8]

Great post... I congratulate you are taking a stand and not crumbling on the pressure of "political correctness".

[THINKfutureShow]

The question is: Whose decision is it to make? If the child is a person, then all abortion is murder and should be outlawed. Do you agree with this? If so, then are we not violating the rights of the mother? How can this be enforced without violating the rights of the mother?

[JMBSM61]

Yes. I agree with that statement and would point out that the rights of the victim here ( the unborn child ) have been violated. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I struggled with this subject a long time. Each person must make their own decision on this as based upon their own conscience. I don't propose to force my ideas on anyone.

[THINKfutureShow]

So the question is: how can we stop the mother from aborting the child without blocking her rights? Are you saying that the mothers rights are less important that the rights of the child? If they are equally important, then the only solution is to completely respect and support the mother to take the child to term. How can we do that? We have to delve into the reasons a mother would abort a child and work to remove those.

[JMBSM61]

Well, You bring up many interesting questions. My first answer would be to promote adoption as the best option for all involved and to spend no money promoting abortion and if taxpayer money is to be spent it should be spent promoting adoption. Being an adopted at birth child myself I guess I have a real reason to be thankful that my birth mother chose that option although I have never met her nor do I know anything about her but I do thank her for her decision. Cont.

[AJSensei]

A fetus is life. If I can get a double murder for killing a pregnant woman then it is illigal to have an abortion.

[jxwhit8]

great point

[THINKfutureShow]

Makes sense. But does that mean that that crime should not be considered a double murder, if you are pro-abortion? Is this one of those cases of shifting morality - the pro-choice attorney calls it a double-murder in order to elicit emotions against the killer, but really does not believe that?

[Guevaristas]

you put forth a heartless neo-fascist ideology of limited government intervention.

[JHancock1776]

Just curious...how can you equate "neo-fascism" to limited govt. intervention? Those two ideals are seemingly diametrically opposed.

[wood9670]

I should be allowed to beat my wife and molest my children in the PRIVACY of my home. Government should have no say.

Once you answer the question on why uts wrong to beat my wife and molest my children in my own home, and ever, then maybe, just maybe you will be one step closer to understanding why abortion is wrong.

I rape a child, you have no say.

I take a slave you have no say.

Get the message yet.

Abortion is about the life of the unborn, everyone who cares for human dignity has a say.

[whoo689]

When gov't starts giving all these stupid block grants and whathaveyou to states, it gives the state gov'ts much less of an incentive for balanced budgets. Not to mention the federal government cannot afford to keep spending! If anything should be cut first, it should be those. State budgets can be balanced easily if they'd just have the balls to actually cut stuff we don't need and stop acting like EVERYTHING they enact is a must! I mean, SOMETHING must be unnecessary.

[whoo689]

Other than contractors to build gov't buildings, it's pretty much off-limits for gov't to spend on PRIVATE services. Gov't should only spend tax revenues on public constitutional projects and agencies.

I am also highly against earmarks. An earmark that goes toward a new military base is kind of an exception since that's part of the federal military. But most other earmarks only benefit one particular state or area, and I don't feel like making my tax revenues pay for OTHER states' crap.

[whoo689]

I am also HIGHLY upset that Obama kept Bush's faith-based initiatives. As long as the faith-based charities don't spend federal money on proselytizing, I don't have any big "separation of church and state" issues. But I just don't like the fact that the GOVERNMENT is discriminating against nonsectarian and private charities here. I mean, why? If you're gonna give money to charities, might as well give it evenly to both sides. Are religious charities somehow MORE moral or better?

[whoo689]

And charities exist for a reason: to raise PRIVATE funds for poor and disadvantaged people. Gov't needs to stay out. I mean, if these charities REALLY want all this gov't help, they might as well just become new gov't welfare agencies, for god sake.

Lastly, I believe in the separation of gov't levels: local, state and federal. That said, I find it horrendous for gov't to give federal tax money to states. Federal dollars to federal projects, state revenues to state, and local to local.

[whoo689]

Obama reinstituted the idiotic Mexico City policy. Now not only are we giving money to Planned Parenthood for DOMESTIC abortions but also for FOREIGN ones.

[whoo689]

However, I am prochoice. But I still totally agree with this video. At first when I was a liberal I thought "Oh, well, that sounds great, reducing the number of abortions. There's something both sides can get behind." But now that I'm a libertarian, I'm like "ehh... no. Gov't should not fund private organizations or corporations just because." The only time gov't can give funding to any private organization I think is a contractor to build a new road or school or library or whatever.

[THINKfutureShow]

I know. Obama is plainly an abortionist. I'm surprised that he still gets a pass from those simply since he talks moderation. His actions are very clear. He will fund any abortion anywhere with taxpayer funds and he has no qualms about it.

[jxwhit8]

allowing the free market and society to decide on this... would eventually eradicate abortion. There is NO free market argument for abortion that out weighs the arguments against the horrors of abortion. Further the private money against abortion outweighs to for-abortion funds by 100-1. Abortion will still happen, but it will be very rare and very EXPENSIVE. Pro-abortionists (planned parenthood) will die on the vine without government money.

[THINKfutureShow]

You really think so? I think that there are enough people out there who would be able to set up a market in abortion services, and as much as I hate to say it, there would be competition between the service providers in order to drive down prices. Once the public funding dries up, do you really think no private providers will step in and provide that for a price - and competition to drive it down?

[jxwhit8]

I do.. and I will tell you why. Public money, pro-abortion education, etc... drives abortion. Abortion is a form of eugenics that was derived by elitist and governments in the early 1900s, late 1800s. IF you pull government out of abortion... you kill the life blood of the abortion movement. No money.. no movement. In order to stay a float... abortionists will need to compete against the pro-life movement which is ALL private money. Abortionist money will come from their procedures.. more.

[jxwhit8]

and it will come from pro-abortionist donation (which is different than pro-choice $... most of whom dont support abortion, but support a woman to have the option). This isnt against pro-choice people... the choice is still there. The pro-life message and money will overwhelm the ability of the pro-abortionist message to make abortion a "good or moral" choice outside of extreme circumstances (life of mom, rape, incest). Without government interference... I believe morality wins... more..

[jxwhit8]

The procedure will be rare, so the cost of it will go up. The insurance companies do not and will not cover the procedure, because it is an elected procedure (unless mom is going to die). When it becomes a pocket book strain... people will become much more careful about protecting themselves before a pregnancy happen. One could argue... what about the poor and their "right" for abortion. I would argue... what right? its a medical procedure.

[jxwhit8]

In short... there is no "passion" behind abortion when people need to start spending their own money. It is easy to get behind eugenics when it is somebody else's money you are spending.

[JMBSM61]

Bravo!

[THINKfutureShow]

And that is exactly how we can eradicate it...

[THINKfutureShow]

Agreed. This is a tough issue, as these are two lives in one person. I don't see how we can value one life over another, or agree that one side or the other "wins" without force on either side. I agree with you that a fetus is human, a potential human life, and if we had the technology to move that fetus out of the womb at any stage then we should. However since we can't yet, I'd say that while i may not agree with the decision, its ultimately not mine, or any government functionaries.

[JHancock1776]

Chris...I am 50/50 with you on this one...and this is probably the only time I may ever be that with you on any issue.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the funding side of things. Public money should NEVER go for private services. It is a MAJOR usurpation of the Constitution. Period.

However, I do belive that the Supreme Court should rule that abortion is illegal because of human rights...even if that human is not self sufficient.

Remeber, there was a time when people considered...

[JHancock1776]

black people to be "sub-human". This was an obviuous fault in our thinking and thankfully was corrected...hopefully the memories and bad results of it will disappear soon as well.

Another point, technology makes a fetus/human more viable at earlier stages...therefore, a definitive timetable is not able to be recognized. But let's asume there was one, say 20 weeks. What about the fetus at 19 weeks and 6 days? Is it any less of a person?

The fact of the matter is that DNA is present from the

[JHancock1776]

moment of conception. A fetus is still human, just in a form we are not used to seeing. This is not much different than when a tadpole becomes a frog, or a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Same animal, but different stages of development.

Finally, if the bar for life is based upon self-sustainability, who shall decide when a sick person shall die? If a person is comatose and stuck on life support, shall their life be ended. In my opinion, that decision has to be predetermined by the person...

[JHancock1776]

...and if it has not been predetermined, we should not have the right to take a life.

The only time I agree with abortion is when the life of the mother is at stake. I am on the fence in cases of rape and incest and definitely open to discussion with others in those instances. Otherwise, a fetus is a human, and his/her rights need to be protected.

Still love your shows and will continue to watch.

Peace,

JH

[dvader42]

Well i guess government should just stop funding everything!!!

[JHancock1776]

Pretty much...except for what is good for ALL people...such as those things listed in that trampled document, otherwise known as the Constitution!

[dvader42]

Your joking right! So lets stop funding Education because it only helps some people,or social security, hell by that notion we should stop funding the Defense program because it doesn't benefit those we blow up! Come on get real!

[JHancock1776]

Education should be left to the individual states/communities...not the Feds.

Social Security is stolen from, by the Feds, on a daily basis, and will be unsustainable in about thirty years...so yes, the Feds fucked that up too and funding it should be phased out.

The "common defence" is part of our Constitution...standing armies, navies to protect trade, etc. So yes, fund it...BIG.

When I said ALL people, I meant ALL AMERICAN citizens. I would hope you know what I meant.

[jxwhit8]

private education ALWAYS out-performs social education.  SS is a ponzi scheme and is unsustainable.

[dvader42]

Really is that why social security has worked since the new deal?

[jxwhit8]

Really... is that why our country is nearly bankrupt? I tell you what... you keep your social security and you let me keep my money. I will invest in free market investments. I will have 4million by the time I am 55 and you will have $1200 a month that you have to pay taxes on when your 67. The NEW DEAL sold our country to banks. FU very much.

[dvader42]

One quit with the insults two if investing was such a good idea is that why people lost trillions in the "free markets" over the last year? Besides "free markets" really aren't free, they are also controlled by the banks! Don't be so naive!!!!

[jxwhit8]

one... didnt insult you (i was speaking to the Aholes that sold our country to the banks). You just said I was Naive. Does that make you a hypocrite?? two... I havent lost a dime in my investments. Trillions were lost due to artificial bubbles created by.... SURPRISE the government and socialist ideology. 3... you are making my point. Yes the markets are ran by the government and banks.... why? Go back to the New Deal and previous... the formation of the Federal Reserve. Im naive??

[jxwhit8]

BTW... i am just curious... Who are you getting your information from? The progressives that says SS is unsustainable, the conservatives that says SS is unsustainable, or private orgs that say SS is unsustainable. Actually I cant think of one source other than dvader42 that thinks SS is sustainable. What do you think that does to your credibility? Its not too late, you can still change.

[jxwhit8]

absolutely... just about everything.