Not all blacks are bad people!

[ComradeMeow]

Also us righties do not believe in restricting women's rights. AT ALL!
BUT no woman has the right to an abortion or the right to contraception. She has the right to buy those things like any other person.

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

I don't think we agree fundamentally on what "restricting women's rights" means.

Of course "you righties" want to restrict women's rights. A very long history of this is plain evidence of it.

Obviously not the philosophical type.

I am referring to political rights and human rights. 

• No woman has the right to have an abortion using other people's money.
  
• A woman only has the right to have such services on fair and equal grounds. Be it monetary earnings or whatever health services she has available. 
  

This is an extremely simple concept. Contraception is available and it is not expensive. If you cannot make the right decisions in life, I refuse to correct the faults of thousands of strangers and promote their lack of discipline. 

[Jello]

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

I don't think we agree fundamentally on what "restricting women's rights" means.

Of course "you righties" want to restrict women's rights. A very long history of this is plain evidence of it.

Obviously not the philosophical type.

I am referring to political rights and human rights. 

• No woman has the right to have an abortion using other people's money.
  
• A woman only has the right to have such services on fair and equal grounds. Be it monetary earnings or whatever health services she has available. 
  

This is an extremely simple concept. Contraception is available and it is not expensive. If you cannot make the right decisions in life, I refuse to correct the faults of thousands of strangers and promote their lack of discipline. 

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

[ComradeMeow]

Obviously not the philosophical type.

I am referring to political rights and human rights. 

• No woman has the right to have an abortion using other people's money.
  
• A woman only has the right to have such services on fair and equal grounds. Be it monetary earnings or whatever health services she has available. 
  

This is an extremely simple concept. Contraception is available and it is not expensive. If you cannot make the right decisions in life, I refuse to correct the faults of thousands of strangers and promote their lack of discipline. 

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

. . . seriously?
It is rape, my answer is obvious to that. Take the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion. 

Somebody rapes somebody and obviously the rapist is apart of society; unless he/she is an inter-dimensional alien which turns it into a fuck-fest at this point. But of course a means of undoing the wrong is acceptable through service providers, charity or something of the kind. But this circumstance alone would not justify that everybody be shielded from the horrors of life. I understand the impact of rape but what about the impact of those who suffer from faults of their own. Should we as a society be forced to pay for their idiocy?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And what are the results to society if the irresponsible cannot afford the abortion, and (obviously, then) cannot afford to raise the child?

Is it cheaper to let those chips fall where they may? Is it perhaps cheaper to fund the abortion? Have you crunched the numbers?

[Amarok]

And what are the results to society if the irresponsible cannot afford the abortion, and (obviously, then) cannot afford to raise the child?

Is it cheaper to let those chips fall where they may? Is it perhaps cheaper to fund the abortion? Have you crunched the numbers?

planned parenthood is cheaper overall and safer for all involved and yes any attempt to reduce access defunding planned parenthood is mentally retarded

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's my thinking, but I have not run the numbers. They'd have to be pretty unusual numbers to beat out, say, $30k/year in incarceration coats, etc.

[ComradeMeow]

I don't get where the odious agenda comes from.

I don't know where racism comes from either ... but that is the obvious agenda the OP is pushing.

I cannot say that the OP is trying to post something racist but it coincides with what many of us Righties say. I do not find the post itself racist although I do admit to not reading the link.

I don't find anything bad in right wing politics except for the self-righteous religious nuts who think the hand of Gawd is ready to smite those who like their fudge well packed. I understand that dislike and I say it is completely fair due to the lack of ethics involved in it but be serious here.
Do you really feel so bad about us Righties that you find us evil?

Actually, elsewhere on this forum, you can find a recent thread where I defend conservatism in American politics. As I write in that thread, I think having a broad range of views is vital to healthy political discourse.

Also, I'm not sure why you think I consider conservatives "evil". Would you quote the words that gave you that impression? Clearly there's a misunderstanding afoot, one which I'll be happy to clear up.

I think I am mistaking you for the response that downbeatplumb made. 

I find Lefties to be immature I admit but I won't hold it against their head every time. Many things they say and do are very important to me like environmentalism and secularism. 

That's nice. I find generalizations about this or that group to be useless. When people engage in generalizations, I find myself questioning how much they themselves question their own premises.

ComradeMeow
[quote pid='1478792' dateline='1483263055']
I also do not find any of the facts taken out of context. They are what they are unless you are using them as a tool for legislation.

Nonsense. Bereft of the context of other sociocultural data, focusing solely on the race of the subjects of that data is simply a fancy post hoc mistake. For that data to be seen in context, other reasons why it might be so need to be examined as well.
[/quote]


Hmmm, but race leads to other factors like income, social structure, racial tendencies, political leaning, local legislative powers, economic climate and culture analysis. 
I see this same data get used and I always see it get backed by the implications it can lead to along with the implications it results from. Also it is not Post Hoc if no claim is being made. With this same logic if I was to say, "most of my friends do not like." It does not make it fallacious since no preposition is being put forth. A logical fallacy requires a preposition and this is why logical fallacies do not apply to the field of statistics unless basing an analysis from it.

Now I can easily tell you what the analysis finds in these statistics and my personal predictions on their future results. I am sure yours differ but we are not jumping the shark before we find a boat. 

But people like me want to deregulate the nation not the reverse, so saying that it is somehow a horrible agenda only implies domination of some sort. You cannot dominate without force and the principle of force has always resided heavily in leftist politics.

Your assumption that an agenda can only be political is unfounded. That was not the agenda that I had in mind, and I'm unsure why you think otherwise.

I did not state or imply that an agenda must be political. You made a reference to what I assume you thought as an agenda that Republicans have about race and their ways of dealing with it. Am I not correct?

---

And what are the results to society if the irresponsible cannot afford the abortion, and (obviously, then) cannot afford to raise the child?

Is it cheaper to let those chips fall where they may? Is it perhaps cheaper to fund the abortion? Have you crunched the numbers?

Death. 
It is not of my own will that I forced anybody to make the mistake that resulted in their comeuppance. 
Should I try to find ways to enforce regulatory actions on chairs because I made the foolish decision to jump off one and hence forth break my neck? Is it not of my own foolishness that I acquired my price? Should others suffer with ridiculous seating equipment because of my idiocy?

What makes you think it would be expensive to let abortions go into the market? You do realize that a vast amount of women who get abortions are already on their second if not more. If they are incapable of having adequate intelligence to control sexual desires why would I desire them to acquire benefits meant for the civilized? We are humans and are apart of nature, why would I deluded myself into thinking that I can somehow stop suffering?

And yes that is an honest question

[Thumpalumpacus]

[ComradeMeow]

[Jello]

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

. . . seriously?
It is rape, my answer is obvious to that. Take the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion. 

Somebody rapes somebody and obviously the rapist is apart of society; unless he/she is an inter-dimensional alien which turns it into a fuck-fest at this point. But of course a means of undoing the wrong is acceptable through service providers, charity or something of the kind. But this circumstance alone would not justify that everybody be shielded from the horrors of life. I understand the impact of rape but what about the impact of those who suffer from faults of their own. Should we as a society be forced to pay for their idiocy?

Whilst you think it may have seemed obvious, from over here it just looked like you wanted to charge people for abortions, therefore, i asked the question to find out whether that extended to rape victims. Thanks for answering the question