Romney : 47% of Americans are freeloaders who pay no tax

[AKB0048]

SilentMelodyx3

Who are we to decide whether or not one's life should be put to an end? we have absolutely no idea what their futures are like.

It's a baby. A child. If you abandon them, it's the same as telling them to die. And you do know what their future will most likely be like until they turn 18. Unless they're fortunate enough to be adopted, they will be come a ward of the state and either live in government houses or get shuffled around between foster homes. Then, when kicked out once they're 18, they'll probably have no access to higher education and live a life in poverty. That's a pretty shitty future.

And from your stance, it's okay to put a child into a garbage can as long as it's born first. Sure, it'll probably die a really terrible death that no one deserves, but it was born first so I can feel better about myself at the end of the day.

The more I discuss this with you, the more I can't help but feel that people who support pro-life are the real monsters.

[SilentMelodyx3]

AKB0048

SilentMelodyx3

Who are we to decide whether or not one's life should be put to an end? we have absolutely no idea what their futures are like.

It's a baby. A child. If you abandon them, it's the same as telling them to die. And you do know what their future will most likely be like until they turn 18. Unless they're fortunate enough to be adopted, they will be come a ward of the state and either live in government houses or get shuffled around between foster homes. Then, when kicked out once they're 18, they'll probably have no access to higher education and live a life in poverty. That's a pretty shitty future.

And from your stance, it's okay to put a child into a garbage can as long as it's born first. Sure, it'll probably die a really terrible death that no one deserves, but it was born first so I can feel better about myself at the end of the day.

The more I discuss this with you, the more I can't help but feel that people who support pro-life are the real monsters.

The entire time you've been assuming that every child is given to adoption, and that those who are will never live "successful" lives.

[AKB0048]

SilentMelodyx3

The entire time you've been assuming that every child is given to adoption, and that those who are will never live "successful" lives.

No. But a lot of those who do and end up not adopted end up homeless. And if they're not given to adoption, where do they go if the parent doesn't want to raise them?

Yes. Put a child into a poverty situation and ask them why they aren't living a better life.

Are you really thinking things through? It is irresponsible to give birth to a child or encourage someone else to give birth to a child if there is no one to take responsibility for it.

[Rya Dracosin]

Abortion talk. Wow. Abortions should be covered by government insurance/funds ONLY when it's medically important.

If it's because a woman is a loose legs lucy or is worried about their figure, it should be considered cosmetic surgery and should not be covered by public services. It should be something that's done with insurance, or pay out of pocket, not in federally funded clinics. Stuff like medicaid or the other state insurance should cover abortions if they meet the critera for medical importance and endangerment to the mother. But if it's because a woman didn't want to be pregnant and she was too stupid to get protection, then it should be considered cosmetic, and only covered under a private insurer who'd cover abortions or other cosmetic surgery.

That's just my view on it. Personally, i'm pro-prevention. Be on birth control, get fixed, do what you gotta do so you don't end up with an unwanted child.

[Flawlessly Broken]

I want to say that Romney's comments about the 47% is just ignorant, I know you only need a certain percentage to win, but when you are president you should be worried about 100% of the US citizens no matter the political party, and not just certain demographics.

I stay neutral and am an independent, but when we have such blatant comments and disregard for a large proportion of the population, of which represent the average person, I will be worried about the future of America if Romney is elected as president.

[S W l F T Y]

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

AKB0048

SilentMelodyx3

Actually I haven't - Hence my having an argument about it.

Then we're at a standstill. You asked why you have to pay for it and I answered. Whether it should be a public service or not is a completely different question.

Might want to read that comment of mine that you first responded to, then. Because if you read the entire thing, you'd understand that, in reality, I was not asking why we had to pay for it. At the end of my comment I stated that those against it simply shouldn't have to - Therefore stating that it shouldn't be handed out as a public service.
Is this clear enough for you, yet? Or are you commenting back just to earn more gold here...

How're you supposed to regulate that lol
You have to pay for it because it should/would be a public service and you are a part of the public.
A parallel to your argument: I'm Amish and I have particular views on technology and I don't drive a car so why should my taxes be used to maintain roads, or I'm a quaker, why should my tax money go towards the war or military."

Regardless of you monetary views on how it should/could be appropriated its kinda irrelevant in my eyes. lol

Oh... I see... so you state in the beginning that it should be a public service? Curious now... Why.

Because I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. On top of that I would hope that if this were the case there would be more control over the practice and would hopefully allow safer procedures.

[Rya Dracosin]

Flawlessly Broken

I want to say that Romney's comments about the 47% is just ignorant, I know you only need a certain percentage to win, but when you are president you should be worried about 100% of the US citizens no matter the political party, and not just certain demographics.

I stay neutral and am an independent, but when we have such blatant comments and disregard for a large proportion of the population, of which represent the average person, I will be worried about the future of America if Romney is elected as president.

I'm not fond of either "main" candidate. But I know my vote means diddly crap if I don't vote for the better of two evils. Maybe it's best I just don't vote this year, it's as good as if I was voting for one of the lesser parties. :/

[SilentMelodyx3]

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

AKB0048

SilentMelodyx3

Actually I haven't - Hence my having an argument about it.

Then we're at a standstill. You asked why you have to pay for it and I answered. Whether it should be a public service or not is a completely different question.

Might want to read that comment of mine that you first responded to, then. Because if you read the entire thing, you'd understand that, in reality, I was not asking why we had to pay for it. At the end of my comment I stated that those against it simply shouldn't have to - Therefore stating that it shouldn't be handed out as a public service.
Is this clear enough for you, yet? Or are you commenting back just to earn more gold here...

How're you supposed to regulate that lol
You have to pay for it because it should/would be a public service and you are a part of the public.
A parallel to your argument: I'm Amish and I have particular views on technology and I don't drive a car so why should my taxes be used to maintain roads, or I'm a quaker, why should my tax money go towards the war or military."

Regardless of you monetary views on how it should/could be appropriated its kinda irrelevant in my eyes. lol

Oh... I see... so you state in the beginning that it should be a public service? Curious now... Why.

Because I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. On top of that I would hope that if this were the case there would be more control over the practice and would hopefully allow safer procedures.

I'll say this again, as I've already stated this to another user: This does not mean I'm against it being a Private service.

[S W l F T Y]

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Might want to read that comment of mine that you first responded to, then. Because if you read the entire thing, you'd understand that, in reality, I was not asking why we had to pay for it. At the end of my comment I stated that those against it simply shouldn't have to - Therefore stating that it shouldn't be handed out as a public service.
Is this clear enough for you, yet? Or are you commenting back just to earn more gold here...

How're you supposed to regulate that lol
You have to pay for it because it should/would be a public service and you are a part of the public.
A parallel to your argument: I'm Amish and I have particular views on technology and I don't drive a car so why should my taxes be used to maintain roads, or I'm a quaker, why should my tax money go towards the war or military."

Regardless of you monetary views on how it should/could be appropriated its kinda irrelevant in my eyes. lol

Oh... I see... so you state in the beginning that it should be a public service? Curious now... Why.

Because I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. On top of that I would hope that if this were the case there would be more control over the practice and would hopefully allow safer procedures.

I'll say this again, as I've already stated this to another user: This does not mean I'm against it being a Private service.

Whut.
I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. Privatizing it doesn't give equal access to, arguably, those who may need it most.

[Goldgato]

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Doesn't change the fact that every human has a right to life.

It's not a human, it's human.

Even if it's depending on the mother for a period of time - It is an individual, with it's own set of increasing consciousness. Ever so - If it's JUST "human", that won't change, a developing human being, is still considered one. It isn't lifeless, and it's purely innocent.

No, a developing human being is a fetus, not a human.

Sooooo, in your eyes a human fetus isn't really human... Well, it is human, and since that is true, they've got the right to live a life.

No, human people have a right to life. Human fetuses do not have a right to life.

[SilentMelodyx3]

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Might want to read that comment of mine that you first responded to, then. Because if you read the entire thing, you'd understand that, in reality, I was not asking why we had to pay for it. At the end of my comment I stated that those against it simply shouldn't have to - Therefore stating that it shouldn't be handed out as a public service.
Is this clear enough for you, yet? Or are you commenting back just to earn more gold here...

How're you supposed to regulate that lol
You have to pay for it because it should/would be a public service and you are a part of the public.
A parallel to your argument: I'm Amish and I have particular views on technology and I don't drive a car so why should my taxes be used to maintain roads, or I'm a quaker, why should my tax money go towards the war or military."

Regardless of you monetary views on how it should/could be appropriated its kinda irrelevant in my eyes. lol

Oh... I see... so you state in the beginning that it should be a public service? Curious now... Why.

Because I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. On top of that I would hope that if this were the case there would be more control over the practice and would hopefully allow safer procedures.

I'll say this again, as I've already stated this to another user: This does not mean I'm against it being a Private service.

Whut.
I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. Privatizing it doesn't give equal access to, arguably, those who may need it most.

By saying it should be available to all women is a mistake in itself.

[SilentMelodyx3]

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Doesn't change the fact that every human has a right to life.

It's not a human, it's human.

Even if it's depending on the mother for a period of time - It is an individual, with it's own set of increasing consciousness. Ever so - If it's JUST "human", that won't change, a developing human being, is still considered one. It isn't lifeless, and it's purely innocent.

No, a developing human being is a fetus, not a human.

Sooooo, in your eyes a human fetus isn't really human... Well, it is human, and since that is true, they've got the right to live a life.

No, human people have a right to life. Human fetuses do not have a right to life.

Nevertheless, it is human, and it is alive. Human life is a prolonged formation... It is a genetically distinct human organism, and is thereby formed. It is a being. A human fetus is basically a human being at a very early stage of their development.

One's basic right to live is not dependent on the human's stage of development (neither amount of dependency), but on their identity as a member of the human species. Therefore, they do have that right.

[S W l F T Y]

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Eclectice

SilentMelodyx3

Oh... I see... so you state in the beginning that it should be a public service? Curious now... Why.

Because I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. On top of that I would hope that if this were the case there would be more control over the practice and would hopefully allow safer procedures.

I'll say this again, as I've already stated this to another user: This does not mean I'm against it being a Private service.

Whut.
I think it should be a service available to all women not something that is an advantage to those of a certain socio-economic status. Privatizing it doesn't give equal access to, arguably, those who may need it most.

By saying it should be available to all women is a mistake in itself.

How does that make any sense that a medical procedure should only be available to a certain group of people. Get off your privilege horse and then we can talk.

[Goldgato]

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Goldgato

SilentMelodyx3

Even if it's depending on the mother for a period of time - It is an individual, with it's own set of increasing consciousness. Ever so - If it's JUST "human", that won't change, a developing human being, is still considered one. It isn't lifeless, and it's purely innocent.

No, a developing human being is a fetus, not a human.

Sooooo, in your eyes a human fetus isn't really human... Well, it is human, and since that is true, they've got the right to live a life.

No, human people have a right to life. Human fetuses do not have a right to life.

Nevertheless, it is human, and it is alive. Human life is a prolonged formation... It is a genetically distinct human organism, and is thereby formed. It is a being. A human fetus is basically a human being at a very early stage of their development.

One's basic right to live is not dependent on the human's stage of development (neither amount of dependency), but on their identity as a member of the human species. Therefore, they do have that right.

You're doing it again. Human is still not the same thing as person.

[Nyadriel]

Flawlessly Broken

I want to say that Romney's comments about the 47% is just ignorant, I know you only need a certain percentage to win, but when you are president you should be worried about 100% of the US citizens no matter the political party, and not just certain demographics.

I stay neutral and am an independent, but when we have such blatant comments and disregard for a large proportion of the population, of which represent the average person, I will be worried about the future of America if Romney is elected as president.

Not only that, though it is true that that percentage that does not "pay Fed income tax", not all of them are gonna vote for Romney. Only a portion of those people will while others will vote for him. He obviously does not think so.