Originally posted by dystoniacQuite possible - but in any case, if abortion is indeed immoral (I don't think so - but let's assume it is), then a government is not immoral if it allows abortion, people are immoral if they do it. Since other members of society do not suffer from people getting an abortion (instead, society in general benefits from legalized abortion due to the lower crime that results from it) there is no reason for government to stop people from doing it.
I'm not surprized....should I be? We have retards here, both the guy and girl, who fornicate w/o thought to contraception, and when they become pregnant, abortion is just a "simple doctor's vist". Maybe you have better sex-education in Holland, ready access to the abortion pill for any age, etc....I don't know.
Originally posted by rwingettAgreed!😏
It's going to take a long, long time to undo all the damage done by the "free market" Svengalis over the last three decades. Hopefully, though, their complete moral bankruptcy has been made plainly evident and we can get back to resuscitating the New Deal. A long overdue national health system should be the cornerstone of that.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI say this not with the intent of starting an abortion debate. Personally, I don't like abortion, but I'm ambivalent as to whether the government should legislate against it. Abortion is not an issue that would sway my vote one way or the other.
Quite possible - but in any case, if abortion is indeed immoral (I don't think so - but let's assume it is), then a government is not immoral if it allows abortion, people are immoral if they do it. Since other members of society do not suffer from people getting an abortion (instead, society in general benefits from legalized abortion due to the lower crime that results from it) there is no reason for government to stop people from doing it.
Still, your argument is a bit simplistic. It could certainly be applied to assisted suicide, which is completely illegal in 48 states an illegal in most cases in the other two.
The question about the morality of abortion is whether the fetus ought to have rights. If the answer to that is no, well, then of course abortion should be legal. If the answer to that is yes, then the fetus is an"other member of society."
The argument about generally benefiting society could be applied to murder in many cases.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA more true secular-progressive answer could not be found anywhere.....
Quite possible - but in any case, if abortion is indeed immoral (I don't think so - but let's assume it is), then a government is not immoral if it allows abortion, people are immoral if they do it. Since other members of society do not suffer from people getting an abortion (instead, society in general benefits from legalized abortion due to the lower crime that results from it) there is no reason for government to stop people from doing it.
Can fetuses be "other members of society".....the "society of the unborn"?
What's your limit on abortion? within the second trimester or up until the week of birth?
Originally posted by shavixmirI did mean in America. That's why I referenced American presidencies and popular culture. I could have been more explicit though. To be honest I'm not anywhere close to intimately aware of political sentiments in European countries. That might be an interesting topic for a different thread though.
Only in America.
Originally posted by dystoniacYou may be right about those associations for the word "liberal." In the beginning of my OP, I listed some negative associations with the word as well.
It's called secular progressivism. The Republicans no longer represent middle America; in fact, no party represents anyone just right of center. What we have today are leftwing lunatics and rightwing retards. Many people are now self-described Independents, such as myself. If conservatives are picking up 'negatives' such as 'pigheadedness', 'callousene ...[text shortened]... ile taxing us into oblivion. I could be wrong, so this is just my opinion.
1 edit
I feel like we're really getting off subject in this thread. My intention is to focus on the word "conservatism" and how its image in American culture has perhaps shifted in the last few years. I'm not saying that the word "liberal" is becoming a compliment. In fact, I'm really not interested in that word right now.
In my experiences, "conservative" has usually been a high ground descriptor. Claiming to be conservative meant that though you may be a bit old-fashioned you are sensible and cautious. In a mixed audience, if one person claimed to be conservative and another to be liberal, the liberal person was immediately at a disadvantage in public sentiment. Now I see more and more people who I know are conservative being more defensive about saying so. I think that because of the Bush administration the stock of conservative has really lost a lot of its value. Bush really wasn't a good example of fiscal responsibility nor of wise judgment on national defense. He was sort of the anti-Reagan in terms of conservatism's image. Now in mixed company saying that your conservative doesn't claim you an early advantage.
Anyway it will be interesting to see how this develops over the next few years. I suppose a lot of that will depend upon how Obama is perceived after this term. If people decide that his policies really are killing their pocketbooks in higher taxes, then he'll look like yet another irresponsible liberal. However, if he comes out on the other side as everyone's hero, then "conservative" may the same sort of pejorative that "liberal" has been.
Originally posted by dystoniacPretty much so, yes.
I suppose Holland is a model society? 🙄
Extremes never last long, long term investments, great engineering, very little severe poverty, etc. etc.
Futuristic ideas in practice on euthenasia, drugs, crime, etc.
I think you'll find that the Netherlands (Holland being just 2 provinces) is the medium-term future of the US.
Originally posted by shavixmirLet's hope so, for the sake of Americans. Although there is still a lot that can be improved, of course, starting with the abolishment of mortgage deductions and agricultural subsidies.
Pretty much so, yes.
Extremes never last long, long term investments, great engineering, very little severe poverty, etc. etc.
Futuristic ideas in practice on euthenasia, drugs, crime, etc.
I think you'll find that the Netherlands (Holland being just 2 provinces) is the medium-term future of the US.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, you can do it in the Netherlands however you like, but mortgage interest deductions are here to stay in the U.S., thankfully. In the US, home ownership is encouraged and is not just for the wealthy. With prices down over 20% nationwide and mortgage rates very low, home ownership is affordable for middle income people and many low income people. Maybe not in New York or San Francisco, but in many places.
I was talking about mortgage deductions in the Netherlands, but in any case, mortgage deductions are a pointless disturbance of the real estate market that just ships money from the poor to the wealthy.
I don't understand how it would "ship money from the poor to the wealthy," as low income people don't pay federal income tax anyway.
If you don't want to give the mortgage interest break to the wealthy, then cap the deduction at a reasonable amount, as Obama has been talking about doing. But abolishing it would be a disaster and it would almost certainly cost Obama any chance of being re-elected.
Originally posted by shavixmirbut while all this is true, and the Netherlands is indeed a most admirable society, it has a long tradition and culture that comes from a largely homogenous population.
Pretty much so, yes.
Extremes never last long, long term investments, great engineering, very little severe poverty, etc. etc.
Futuristic ideas in practice on euthenasia, drugs, crime, etc.
I think you'll find that the Netherlands (Holland being just 2 provinces) is the medium-term future of the US.
address the problems the Netherlands is having with the influx of people from very different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds.
I know, in terms of environmental policy, that the approach taken by the netherlands only works so well because of the scale involved as well as the relatively easy time the government there has in getting cooperation by setting goals instead of making prescriptive rules.
Originally posted by telerionIt might be relevant for understanding this shift in the US, though.
I did mean in America. That's why I referenced American presidencies and popular culture. I could have been more explicit though. To be honest I'm not anywhere close to intimately aware of political sentiments in European countries. That might be an interesting topic for a different thread though.
In my country, for example, "conservative" brings memories of values that were defended by the pre-1974 dictatorial regime. In a society that wants to move away from such a regime, it's only natural that keeping such values is not particularly well seen, synonymous with "reactionary". I think this has its origins from the time of the French Revolution where "reactionism" was used to describe those that wanted to go back to pre-revolution values.
For the US, I suspect this might indicate an increase in the importance of the divide within the Republican party between the moral conservatives and the libertarians. As larger and larger portions of the society move away from conservative moral standards, the more divisive will this tend to be.
Originally posted by ScriabinHolland is having very little problems with immigrants, actually. Unemployment is the lowest of the EU. The main problem concerning immigrants in the Netherlands is people voting for racist right wing parties because they are ignorant idiots.
but while all this is true, and the Netherlands is indeed a most admirable society, it has a long tradition and culture that comes from a largely homogenous population.
address the problems the Netherlands is having with the influx of people from very different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds.
I know, in terms of environmental policy, that ...[text shortened]... vernment there has in getting cooperation by setting goals instead of making prescriptive rules.