Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly
Killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

[6ftstick]

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly
Killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

And what are the "innocents" being punished for. Your moral equivalency attempt is absurd.

[jhu72]

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly
Killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

And what are the "innocents" being punished for. Your moral equivalency attempt is absurd.

Kramer made no comment or condition about "innocents". His argument is about "simplicity". No need for a human decision.


So you haven't been around for a while. How did that November election work out for you?

[6ftstick]

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly
Killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

And what are the "innocents" being punished for. Your moral equivalency attempt is absurd.

Kramer made no comment or condition about "innocents". His argument is about "simplicity". No need for a human decision.


So you haven't been around for a while. How did that November election work out for you?

Please go ahead and gloat. Its the first success you've had since 2010. And a small one at that. Who still runs the Senate the white house and the courts?

[jhu72]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

[dislaxxic]

‘There Is Going to Be a War Within the Party. We Are Going to Lean Into It.’

The Progressive wing of the party has its sights on the Democratic Establishment...

..

[youthathletics]

‘There Is Going to Be a War Within the Party. We Are Going to Lean Into It.’

The Progressive wing of the party has its sights on the Democratic Establishment...

..

They are calling Conservative Democrats "radical" There is plenty of room on the republican "conservative" side for you "radical" conservative democrats. Many of those "radical" democrats are already distancing themselves from the fringe Cortez types. Next thing you know, they'll be calling you "radical racists"or even "Old White Women and Men Conservatives".

AOC, her time is limited and before you know it, Pelosi will need to silence her by finding dirt on her or pushing another person to replace her next election.

[kramerica.inc]

Enough of the strawman moralizing. This has got nothing to do with healthy "babies" being murdered because they are inconvient. This is about late term fetuses with with serious, quality of life issues, or health of the mother issues. Who in the f-you-see-kay are you or anyone else to make a medical decision for a mother faced with these kinds of decisions? I guaranttee you, the women making these decisions are torn apart making these decisions. A baby with no chance for a meaningful life is made to linger, society is made to spend resources -- your resources, which you complain about endlessly. You don't know the mother, you don't know the family but you are so sure that they are evil, they are making such decisions because it is inconvient. You should have to walk in their shoes. Everyone of these women would gladly trade places with your moralizing ass and let you deal with the issue AND THE CONSEQUENCES for you own "child" or "children".

Thankfully, late term abortions are exceedingly rare!

This dust up has nothing to do with the facts of the situation, they are just talking points of the nut fringe anti-abortion fascists who are determined to control womens' lives.

IMO, this is not about controlling women's lives, rather, taking the burden from the mothers who do make those decisions and then have to live with it forever.

And a very similar strawman exists on the other side: We allow late term abortions for those rare occurrences when the pregnancy is deemed "Baby OR Mother." Why not require the mother and Dr do their best to bring the baby into the world? (Answer below)

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

I agree 100%. As I mentioned in my previous post. "You can't be pro life and pro death penalty."

Why is capital punishment, war, or abortion around at all?

hmm...

Oh right. For the sake of money and expediency.

[DMac]

kramerica.inc said
Oh right. For the sake of money and expediency.

I'm not so sure that's accurate, kram. I get what you're saying there, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

[wahoomurf]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking of having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

Eager to see if Speaker Pelosi can keep a straight face when VSG reads his speech tomorrow.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... nsent.html I had to laugh my ass off when I read this. Then I started thinking I bet there are at least a handful of jack wagons here on this forum that agree with what this knucklehead is trying to say. I can think of one REALLY BIG flaw in this idiots logic. For the average FLP type person it will always sail right over their head. Break out your thinking caps you FLP folks and see if any of you can figure it out. There is the Don Rickles prize involved. If you get the answer... you win a cookie.

[cradleandshoot]

Enough of the strawman moralizing. This has got nothing to do with healthy "babies" being murdered because they are inconvient. This is about late term fetuses with with serious, quality of life issues, or health of the mother issues. Who in the f-you-see-kay are you or anyone else to make a medical decision for a mother faced with these kinds of decisions? I guaranttee you, the women making these decisions are torn apart making these decisions. A baby with no chance for a meaningful life is made to linger, society is made to spend resources -- your resources, which you complain about endlessly. You don't know the mother, you don't know the family but you are so sure that they are evil, they are making such decisions because it is inconvient. You should have to walk in their shoes. Everyone of these women would gladly trade places with your moralizing ass and let you deal with the issue AND THE CONSEQUENCES for you own "child" or "children".

Thankfully, late term abortions are exceedingly rare!

This dust up has nothing to do with the facts of the situation, they are just talking points of the nut fringe anti-abortion fascists who are determined to control womens' lives.

IMO, this is not about controlling women's lives, rather, taking the burden from the mothers who do make those decisions and then have to live with it forever.

And a very similar strawman exists on the other side: We allow late term abortions for those rare occurrences when the pregnancy is deemed "Baby OR Mother." Why not require the mother and Dr do their best to bring the baby into the world? (Answer below)

What is wrong with staying on the side of “keep alive?”

The person themselves, those directly killed by others decisions should get a say in what is a “meaningful life.” Why does anyone get to make a decision to end someone else’s life?

That also includes people on life support. If the person on life support has no living will it’s not a doctor or family member’s place to “know what’s best” for them.

Keeping someone alive and trying to resuscitate makes the most sense and keeps all decisions simple. That puts no responsibility or weight on people to make a life or death decision.

Same could be said for the death penalty for criminal offenses.

I agree 100%. As I mentioned in my previous post. "You can't be pro life and pro death penalty."

Why is capital punishment, war, or abortion around at all?

hmm...

Oh right. For the sake of money and expediency.

Spot on there Kram… especially the money part. It always boils down to follow the money... always has and always will

[cradleandshoot]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking of having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

Eager to if Speaker Pelosi can keep a straight face when VSG reads his speech tomorrow.

Love your avatar Murf. Why the sad looking puppy dog eyes? You also have one pretty big shnozz there bud.

[old salt]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking of having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

Eager to if Speaker Pelosi can keep a straight face when VSG reads his speech tomorrow.

Love your avatar Murf. Why the sad looking puppy dog eyes? You also have one pretty big shnozz there bud.

Beagle ?

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

Needs to resign, the sooner the better.
...

The standard applied to him should be the same one applied to Trump when his past sins have been disclosed to the public.
...

It is somewhat refreshing that a politician immediately owned up to it, to what is obvious to all. No denial, no logic chopping, no obfuscation. I know nothing about this individual, but based on that one fact he is worthy of a second chance in my opinion. Compare that to Agent Orange's behavior, an individual clearly not worthy of any further consideration of forgiveness.

Exactly.

When it is a Democrat whose past behavior is questioned, the response is an immediate demand for his resignation.

When it is a Republican whose past or present behavior is questioned, the immediate response is let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Thereafter we see a myriad of excuses as to why everyone needs to disregard his behavior.

I say it is time to finally apply a uniform application of standards for all. It's only fair.

oh i remember this line of logic- they both do it, they both condemn, but the Ds are quicker to condemn, thus they should have the sole right to govern.

[wahoomurf]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking of having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

Eager to if Speaker Pelosi can keep a straight face when VSG reads his speech tomorrow.

Love your avatar Murf. Why the sad looking puppy dog eyes? You also have one pretty big shnozz there bud.

You should have seen it before the rhinoplasty.

[wahoomurf]

I am sure Donald Trump is thinking of having to deal with Nancy Pelosi is only a minor defeat.

Eager to if Speaker Pelosi can keep a straight face when VSG reads his speech tomorrow.

Love your avatar Murf. Why the sad looking puppy dog eyes? You also have one pretty big shnozz there bud.

Beagle ?

Beagle,pointer and a whole bunch of other breeds. His poppa was a canine "rolling stone".We call him HEINZ.....57 varieties!

[Brooklyn]

oh i remember this line of logic- they both do it, they both condemn, but the Ds are quicker to condemn, thus they should have the sole right to govern.

Jeez, c'on Chairman ~ you know better than that.

The deal is supposed to be about dealing an even hand to everyone. Your mistake is that you fail to understand that the Reps refuse to condemn. McConnell is still in office when the piece of crapola should have been kicked out the Senate a long time ago for supporting bigoted and treasonous secessionists. Where's the outrage from the far right over his evil and treasonous ways?

[kramerica.inc]

kramerica.inc said
Oh right. For the sake of money and expediency.

I'm not so sure that's accurate, kram. I get what you're saying there, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

I respectfully disagree. The difficult and expensive decision is to always have the kid. Period.

My concern is about the large number of abortions that occur right after the 20th week. Not coincidentally that is when the advanced sonograms occur that start to pick up potential developmental shortcomings.

My concern over the late term abortion laws is that we are all hoping like JHU says, that they very rarely, if ever, happen. If that’s the case why legislate it? Hard cases make bad law.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/05/dem ... -abortion/

[kramerica.inc]

kramerica.inc said
Oh right. For the sake of money and expediency.

I'm not so sure that's accurate, kram. I get what you're saying there, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

I respectfully disagree. The difficult and expensive decision is to always have the kid. Fully healthy or not.

I mentioned cost and expediency because of the large number of abortions that occur right after the 20th week. Not coincidentally that is when the advanced sonograms occur that start to pick up potential developmental shortcomings.

I just think it’s so complicated, and the results are so dire and horrible for the kids AND the mothers, that the common sense solution IMO is to err on the side of life.

My concern over the late term abortion laws is that we are all hoping like JHU says, that they very rarely, if ever, happen. If that’s the case why legislate it? Hard cases make bad law.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/05/dem ... -abortion/