Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your coal pollution reports do are accurate, but only to a point. It has shown to have a negative effect on health but it doesn't seem to be killing too many people in developed nations (China I don't consider to be a developed nation and some parts of Europe are 3rd World). There are already regulations in place to protect people from this in the United States.
Again, you are using a fallacy. Just because a lot of people are in situation X does not approve one to commit Y. There are a lot of poor people, does that give people the right to kill a poor person? No.
What fallacy? Why can't we take care of these kids already born. They are waiting to be adopted yet they are forgotten. Your focus is on the unborn, how about you change your focus to the ones here. I won't give you any links cause you can just google it.
We don't. I already explained this to you. We are not against safety nets, we are just against people abusing our safety nets. If we took away all the Federal money that goes into Planned Parenthood for abortions we could spend it instead on adoption agencies and keeping kids healthy.
Usually I come into a thread like this and just say my point, but with this thread I came in different (and it was a huge mistake.) I will speak of the way republicans oppose abortion to get the Christian vote in some other thread.
And you say "we" a lot. But all "we" want is this,
What fallacy? Why can't we take care of these kids already born. They are waiting to be adopted yet they are forgotten. Your focus is on the unborn, how about you change your focus to the ones here. I won't give you any links cause you can just google it.
There are plenty of ways to help these kids find homes, and even if they don't they are still alive. Their Right to Life was not violated.
And yes you were using a fallacy. You were suggesting that because there are children waiting for adoption it makes abortion okay. It is called a False-Connection Fallacy. They are two different issues. Just because there is a different issue called situation X, it doesn't allow one to commit the act of Y against group Z. Just because there are a couple of car accidents that doesn't allow the Government the act to ban cars against everybody else.
"Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year."
"One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967."
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died."
Usually I come into a thread like this and just say my point, but with this thread I came in different (and it was a huge mistake.) I will speak of the way republicans oppose abortion to get the Christian vote in some other thread.
And you say "we" a lot. But all "we" want is this,
"We" as in the general conservative base, of course there are variants of our opinions but in the usual sense this is what "we" as a group tend to believe. I was not a fan of Romney, he was a flip flopper and I ended up voting for Mike Huckabee last election (the next election I intend to vote for Dr. Ben Carson if he is running or Ted Cruz). The conservative plan is to give tax cuts to everyone, not the rich. Furthermore trying to tax the rich is pointless, they have loopholes to get around it, and that tax increase then ends up falling on the middle and lower income earners, hurting poor families even more. It's a shame that so many poor people are tricked into voting for it.
If you want to make the rich people pay their fair share then we have to close the loop holes and the only way to do that is to abolish the income tax and implement a market based tax system only. Everybody pays the same percentage, obviously there would be some kind of credit or voucher system for those in poverty to get around it if they need to. And necessities such as food, medicine etc....would be exempt from the tax. But that is a discussion for another thread.
Why do republicans care so much about the lives of unborn children, and don't care about the 45,000 people who die each year from no insurance?
And why don't republicans care about people dying from coal power plant pollution?
Mainly because people like the modern convenience of power that those coal power plants generate.
Do you want to do without your electricity? Air Conditioning? Heat? Water Softner? Washer? Dryer?
Without something to power it there is no electricity, it actually doesn't just drop from the sky.
One-trick pony anyone? Just because you don't agree with something that someone writes does not automatically make it a fallacy.
I never stated that it did. But there are quite a lot of fallacies that are used on this forum. Your post is also a fallacy as you are not addressing any of my points. Anyone who wants to be a good debater needs to understand and recognize fallacies when they see one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
