Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Aug '12 03:34 / 2 edits
    Guard your children, for liberals are out to rape them of their future.

    Here are but a few reasons as to why.

    1. Liberals view children like they do the unborn. They are not developed enough to really be called human, so why represent them?

    2. It's not like they can vote or send them a corporate check, so why represent them?

    3. Children are nothing more than carbon producing entities that promote global over population. Only through birth control and abortion and gay sex and economic ruin so that people can't afford to have children can this be remedied.

    4. Children rely on their parents for guidance and not the state, so screw'em.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '12 12:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Guard your children, for liberals are out to rape them of their future.

    Here are but a few reasons as to why.

    1. Liberals view children like they do the unborn. They are not developed enough to really be called human, so why represent them?

    2. It's not like they can vote or send them a corporate check, so why represent them?

    3. Children are not remedied.

    4. Children rely on their parents for guidance and not the state, so screw'em.
    A Mark Steyn article actually made a similar point recently (though not using the same specifics as the OP).

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314936/war-children-mark-steyn

    While I do think that "war on children" is a bit hysterical, it is probably less hysterical than those claiming the GOP is waging a "war on women."
  3. 31 Aug '12 12:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Guard your children, for liberals are out to rape them of their future.

    Here are but a few reasons as to why.

    1. Liberals view children like they do the unborn. They are not developed enough to really be called human, so why represent them?

    2. It's not like they can vote or send them a corporate check, so why represent them?

    3. Children are not ...[text shortened]... remedied.

    4. Children rely on their parents for guidance and not the state, so screw'em.
    I don't see a single ounce of truth in any of those.
  4. 31 Aug '12 12:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    A Mark Steyn article actually made a similar point recently (though not using the same specifics as the OP).

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314936/war-children-mark-steyn

    While I do think that "war on children" is a bit hysterical, it is probably less hysterical than those claiming the GOP is waging a "war on women."
    I disagree. Obviously calling it a "war on women" is political. However, the republican party has passed and tried to pass bill after bill after bill that restricts abortion and reproductive rights that directly affect women.

    The republican platform calls for a "personhood amendment" that would essentially ban the birth control pill.

    Where are the ACTUAL policies that the democratic party has tried to pass that do any of the above of whodey's hyperbole where the Republican party has not only passed numerous ACTUAL bills to restrict women's access to health services and contraception?

    I didn't read that article carefully, but I didn't see anything remotely close to justifying any claim of an actual "war on children" that he, you and whodey seem to claim.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '12 13:12
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I disagree. Obviously calling it a "war on women" is political. However, the republican party has passed and tried to pass bill after bill after bill that restricts abortion and reproductive rights that directly affect women.

    The republican platform calls for a "personhood amendment" that would essentially ban the birth control pill.

    Where are the ...[text shortened]... ifying any claim of an actual "war on children" that he, you and whodey seem to claim.
    First of all, Mark Steyn is claiming it. I said it was hysterical.

    Being anti-abortion is obviously not a "war on women." That's ridiculous. Reasonable people can differ on abortion, but wouldn't you agree that it's at least a reasonable position that human life is worth protecting from conception? I'm not saying you need to agree with it (and I don't either), but it's reasonable. Calling this position a "war on women" is hysterical hyperbole.
  6. 31 Aug '12 13:21 / 1 edit
    In politics the truth matters little. It's all about catchy lingos and words that evoke emotion and passing along the kool aid to the partisan shills.

    Does anyone think that chldren will have a brighter future? I doubt anyone really thinks so, yet no one is able to admit as much. Perhaps it is guilt that prevents them. In fact, both parties are to blame.
  7. 31 Aug '12 13:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    First of all, Mark Steyn is claiming it. I said it was hysterical.

    Being anti-abortion is obviously not a "war on women." That's ridiculous. Reasonable people can differ on abortion, but wouldn't you agree that it's at least a reasonable position that human life is worth protecting from conception? I'm not saying you need to agree with it (and I don't either ...[text shortened]... , but it's reasonable. Calling this position a "war on women" is hysterical hyperbole.
    wouldn't you agree that it's at least a reasonable position that human life is worth protecting from conception

    From conception? Not with the same protections of an actual human being, no. I think there are reasonable arguments against abortion at different stages, but not for declaring an embryo to have the same rights as a human being or to have the same protections.

    In that case you are suggesting that it's reasonable to ban the birth control pill, in-vitro fertilization and other birth control methods. Is that reasonable to you? Don't you think the effect of banning all those things have a real life effect on the lives of women?

    This has lead a lawmaker in Georgia to at least introduce a bill that would encourage the investigation of miscarriages just in case one might have been somehow purposeful. Is that reasonable to you?

    So this idea of embryonic person-hood has real life consequences and has had real life policy consequence - that is not hyperbole, it's actual proposed public policy.

    You said it was hysterical, but less hysterical than a "war on women" and I disagree since there are actual policies being implemented against women's reproductive rights. There are no actual policies being directly targeted against children.

    It also includes the specific targeting of planned parenthood for de-funding (over other organizations) that is based on the lie that they use taxpayer money for abortions. That has real women's health repercussions.
  8. 31 Aug '12 13:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]wouldn't you agree that it's at least a reasonable position that human life is worth protecting from conception

    From conception? Not with the same protections of an actual human being, no. I think there are reasonable arguments against abortion at different stages, but not for declaring an embryo to have the same rights as a human being or to have the same protections.

    .[/b]
    Actually, I will tell you a little known fact. Once the child passes out of the birth canal a feiry comes along with a wand and waves it over the child making him or her a human.

    Just say'in.

    Of course, extremists like Obama support things like partial birth abortion.
  9. 31 Aug '12 14:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Actually, I will tell you a little known fact. Once the child passes out of the birth canal a feiry comes along with a wand and waves it over the child making him or her a human.
    If you walked into a room and you had the chance to save only one baby or one million fertilized embryos, which would you choose?
  10. 31 Aug '12 14:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Guard your children, for liberals are out to rape them of their future.

    Here are but a few reasons as to why.

    1. Liberals view children like they do the unborn. They are not developed enough to really be called human, so why represent them?

    2. It's not like they can vote or send them a corporate check, so why represent them?

    3. Children are not remedied.

    4. Children rely on their parents for guidance and not the state, so screw'em.
    Is there nobody in the red neck republican camp who knows what 'rape' actually is.

    Given that it is republicans who believe that children should be left in whatever unfortunate circumstances they are born into so they can be raised as cheap field hands and factory fodder, I would not raise the subject of child care if I was one.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '12 14:26
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]wouldn't you agree that it's at least a reasonable position that human life is worth protecting from conception

    From conception? Not with the same protections of an actual human being, no. I think there are reasonable arguments against abortion at different stages, but not for declaring an embryo to have the same rights as a human being or to ha ...[text shortened]... that they use taxpayer money for abortions. That has real women's health repercussions.[/b]
    Romney and the mainstream GOP platform does not seek to "ban the birth control pill, in-vitro fertilization and other birth control methods." That's a red herring and can't possibly be the justification for Chicken Littles like Barbara Boxer to use the divisive and destructive "war on women" phrase. If that is her justification, than she's a misleader to the point of being a liar.

    If you want to claim "war on women" then you need to be able to point to the mainstream party's position, not cherry pick the words of a few nuts.

    If I wanted to cherry pick the Dems for nuttiness, don't you think I could? Just give me 5 minutes with Wikipedia and that Pete Stark guy from Oakland.

    United States senators are supposed to be more responsible than that; and Barbara Boxer plainly is not.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '12 14:30
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    There are no actual policies being directly targeted against children.
    If you believe that a fetus is a child (as many reasonable people do), then you're darn tootin' right there are actually policies being targeted against children.
  13. 31 Aug '12 14:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    If you believe that a fetus is a child (as many reasonable people do), then you're darn tootin' right there are actually policies being targeted against children.
    There is no policy advocating abortion, only the legality of it.
  14. 31 Aug '12 14:46
    Originally posted by sh76
    Romney and the mainstream GOP platform does not seek to "ban the birth control pill, in-vitro fertilization and other birth control methods." That's a red herring and can't possibly be the justification for Chicken Littles like Barbara Boxer to use the divisive and destructive "war on women" phrase. If that is her justification, than she's a misleader to the po ...[text shortened]... tors are supposed to be more responsible than that; and Barbara Boxer plainly is not.
    Romney and the mainstream GOP platform does not seek to "ban the birth control pill, in-vitro fertilization and other birth control methods."

    The Republican platform that just passed during the convention does support legislation that would do that. If you don't think that's the case then you should look up how the birth control pill actually works. One of the ways that it works is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo - so if you use the birth control pill and you have sex you are potentially killing embryos. If you consider those embryos to be a human being then it is not illogical that banning the pill "saves lives".

    Also, fertilized embryos are destroyed in the process of in-vitro fertilization. If you consider fertilized embryos to have full human rights then in-vitro fertilization is murder.

    Romney has also said that he supports a personhood amendment that would essentially ban the birth control pill. To be fair, Romney has supported just about every position at different times on this issue so it depends when you think he was lying and when you think he wasn't.


    If you want to claim "war on women" then you need to be able to point to the mainstream party's position, not cherry pick the words of a few nuts.

    I am pointing to the LEGISLATION that has been proposed by the Republican party. If those are "just a few nuts" then the mainstream should be protesting and voting them out. It's telling that they aren't doing any such thing....unless they actually support those nuts?

    I am not just cherry picking random things said by a few nuts. I am pointing out actual legislation that is proposed.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '12 14:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]Romney and the mainstream GOP platform does not seek to "ban the birth control pill, in-vitro fertilization and other birth control methods."

    The Republican platform that just passed during the convention does support legislation that would do that. If you don't think that's the case then you should look up how the birth control pill actually wo things said by a few nuts. I am pointing out actual legislation that is proposed.[/b]
    Do you have any links? I'd like to see where the "Republican Party" proposed legislation to ban birth control.

    PS: You don't have "protest" the nuts in your own party. Neither side does. Failing to vote for the legislation that "nuts" introduce is sufficient.

    If those are "just a few nuts" then the mainstream should be protesting and voting them out.


    That's not the way it works. Both sides have nuts and failure to drive them out does not mean they represent the mainstream of your party.