Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

You didn't draw a distinction. You created a justification so that you can sleep better at night.

One can think and feel, and the other can't. You don't see a distinction between an intelligent being and a vegetable? Oh wait you probably voted for Bush and Palin. Never mind...

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

One can think and feel, and the other can't. You don't see a distinction between an intelligent being and a vegetable? Oh wait you probably voted for Bush and Palin. Never mind...

Not that I buy the think and feel stuff that your shoveling, but I really don't understand how making the distinction that developing unborn babies (no matter what age) can't think or feel is in any way a justification to make it ok to abort. By that line of thinking, Im guessing you cannot see the distinction that the act of aborting an unborn is nothing more than stealing away their opportunity to becoming a living, breathing, human being? Or are you against protecting that kind of opportunity for an innocent? pro-choice sounds alot like pro-murder to me.

[spreedom]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...&dlvrit=206567

Romney: Obama voters 'believe they are victims'

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney told a group of donors in a secretly taped video that 47% of Americans will vote for President Obama because they are "dependent upon government" and "believe that they are victims."

The video was obtained by the magazine Mother Jones, which said it came from a source who shot the video at a campaign fundraiser earlier this year. The magazine obscured all but Romney's head in the video, and did not say when or where it was shot.

In response to a question from a donor, the GOP presidential nominee appeared to write off half of the electorate:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ...

"He starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina called the comments "shocking."

"It's hard to serve as president for all Americans when you've disdainfully written off half the nation," Messina said in a statement.

The Romney campaign would not address the video directly, but said the former Massachusetts governor "wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy."

"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work," said Romney communications director Gail Gitcho.

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by spreedom

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...&dlvrit=206567

I was about to start a new thread. Glad I glanced through this one. Here's the video/audio of that quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

I was about to start a new thread. Glad I glanced through this one. Here's the video/audio of that quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

I dont see anything in that quote that isnt really true, except that there are probably a small amount of the 47% that truly take responsibility for themselves and would rather not be on the govt dole. I guess it remains to be seen if those will take offense or just realize that one would probably only take offense because the sting of rebuke is the truth. Those that are happy to be sucking from the teets of the taxpayers are those who BO is buying votes from by continuing to extort from those of us that pay income taxes.

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I dont see anything in that quote that isnt really true, except that there are probably a small amount of the 47% that truly take responsibility for themselves and would rather not be on the govt dole. I guess it remains to be seen if those will take offense or just realize that one would probably only take offense because the sting of rebuke is the truth. Those that are happy to be sucking from the teets of the taxpayers are those who BO is buying votes from by continuing to extort from those of us that pay income taxes.

and those "sucking from the teets of the taxpayers" are living SO large... I'm just so envious that I would rather spend my time bitching about it from my white steed than actually thinking about what justification I have to judge someone based on stereotypical fluff from FOX News... Cry me a river because those teets are dry from my perspective.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

and those "sucking from the teets of the taxpayers" are living SO large... I'm just so envious that I would rather spend my time bitching about it from my white steed than actually thinking about what justification I have to judge someone based on stereotypical fluff from FOX News... Cry me a river because those teets are dry from my perspective.

At what point in your rant are you going to realize that you have no idea where I came from and why I would come to that conclusion? I will give you a hint, I don't have a white steed and I come from a poor family. As for the heart of the matter, I stand by my statement. Like I said before, the sting of rebuke is the truth. I don't know your personal situation. But, if you are taking it personal as it sounds in your response, then I would certainly suggest that you are feeling nothing more than the sting of rebuke I mentioned in my last response.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I dont see anything in that quote that isnt really true, except that there are probably a small amount of the 47% that truly take responsibility for themselves and would rather not be on the govt dole. I guess it remains to be seen if those will take offense or just realize that one would probably only take offense because the sting of rebuke is the truth. Those that are happy to be sucking from the teets of the taxpayers are those who BO is buying votes from by continuing to extort from those of us that pay income taxes.

These 2 old farts sum it up well...

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” Alexis de Tocqueville

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Not that I buy the think and feel stuff that your shoveling, but I really don't understand how making the distinction that developing unborn babies (no matter what age) can't think or feel is in any way a justification to make it ok to abort. By that line of thinking, Im guessing you cannot see the distinction that the act of aborting an unborn is nothing more than stealing away their opportunity to becoming a living, breathing, human being? Or are you against protecting that kind of opportunity for an innocent? pro-choice sounds alot like pro-murder to me.

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby...

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now

Glad we can agree on something. Again, potential sentience is not the question, defining human life and when it begins is the question.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Again, straw man maybe? I am not trying to make the distinction that just developing is the sign of human life. Please see any of my above responses.

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

So, just curious, and not trying to be combative at all.... do you think that since abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all cases? What about cases of forcible rape, or incest (which has been proven scientifically to produce bad genetics)?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

But they are not a thinking feeling human yet and that is what I care about. I don't care if the cell is a zygote or not. That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. The fact that it may one day be a baby is irrelevant. Just like the fact that a sperm may be a baby one day is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

Do you really think I am against contraception? I was referring to Catholicism's argument. That's their argument. Not mine.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

No it is true for everyone. You can't get prosecuted in the court of law for aborting a 4 week embryo. Just like you can't get prosecuted in a court of law for killing sperm with spermicide. Murder implies there are legal ramifications. There is not. my wife can have as many abortions as she likes and not get prosecuted. In our society aborting a 4 week embryo is not considered murder. That is not going to change any time soon, so that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

When did I ever say I defined life as sentience? Sperm is life as far as I'm concerned. But even though sperm may be life it shouldn't be given the same rights as you and me because it is not sentient.

And I don't care whether you consider a human vegetable as life. It doesn't think or feel so it should be given the same rights as me.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

I agree with every single word you said. Yet, I'm not sure where that is supposed to lead me...if anywhere.