Thank you Chuck! We are in agreement in yet another area. I've tried to
tell jps, that he's painting the situation with a racial brush, when he
should be thinking socio-economic.

Dave

Poor, non-white people will always be non-white. That's not a good, bad, or
indifferent thing, but it is a fact. No big deal, it would be boring if we all
looked alike and shared precisely the same family/cultural priorities.

Poor, non-white people don't need to remain *poor*. Where the injustice often
arises is when other elements of society attempt to dictate that they *must*
remain poor, and only because they are non-white.

Early childhood education, ( a la Head Start & similar programs), is a critical
element in breaking the multi-generational
cycle of impoverished thinking and behavior. This is an area where the RW just
doesn't get it: stripping the funding from programs that will influence kids to
take a productive course in life isn't saving the taxpayer's anything. Instead
of spending $6000 to send a kid to Head Start, we wind up spending $60,000 (a
year!) to incarcerate him or her as a failed adult. In some areas of the
country, up to
about a third of the adult men from poor neighborhoods are in prison at any one
time.

And it isn't strictly a racial thing, either.
The majority of white people serving time for violent crimes likely hail from
economic conditions similar to those that their minority cell mates do.

Even if the humanitarian argument falls on deaf ears, the anti-taxation crowd
ought to
try to realize that a $1000 in prevention is worth $100,000 in cure.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Even if the humanitarian argument falls on deaf ears, the anti-taxation
crowd
ought to
try to realize that a $1000 in prevention is worth $100,000 in cure.

Now...hang on just a minute, Gould. Are you claiming that if someone gets
good grades and has marketable skills by the time they get out of high
school or college, they're less likely to rob people in dark alleys and end
up in jail? That's quite an assumption. I'm gonna need to see some right
wing sources for THAT kind of theory.

smirk

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:00:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

But there's no sure fire way of know when the fetus possesses a
conciouness, and a "soul", and therefore is considered an individual,
and not just the product of the mother's genetics.

If there's no sure fire way to know if the fetus posseses a conciousness
and a soul, you must assume it does not.

Why? Are you simply just being contradictory to my assertion, or do you
have some evidence to base this on?


The alternative would mean
you'd have to a conciousness and a "soul" for just about everything,
from animals and plants to furniture.

Furniture is not a living thing, so you can eliminate that one right off

Furniture used to be a living thing, at least real wood furniture. What
if the soul stays with the tree?

the bat. You could make a case that both plants and animals COULD
contain a conciousness or a soul. The implications of this, have far
more rammifications than just the abortion issue.

That's why we treat something where we don't know whether it has
conciousness and a soul as if it didn't.

Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation.

I believe that I have.

But you have not. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word
ONLY when you say "only God can decide life and death." Do you agree
that the word ONLY in that sentence effectively prohibits man from
making ANY life and death decisions for any reason under any condition?

Yes. The way I worded it was incorrect.

Well, here's your chance to word it again,

For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But you are basing this on a philosophy of "all or nothing". There is
very little in life, which falls into that catergory

Wait a second, you have that backwards. YOU are the one who said "ONLY
God can decide life or death." That is an "all or nothing" statement.
Do you now want to retract it? It seems like you do.

If there are ANY conditions that are justifiably decided by man, i.e., a
jury decides to put a murderer to death, then you must have been wrong
when you said "only God can decide life and death." It really is just
that simple. At least some things surrounding this issue are simple.


Ok, I made a poor choice of words. When I said that only God, can
decide, what I should have said, was that only God, can provide the
guidelines, by which we base our morality. The decision is indirectly
outlined by God's teachings.

Then it's up to man to interpret those teachings. I'm sure God would
want a woman to have a safe and legal abortion if he directs her
thoughts toward desiring one in the first place.

God has allowed for cases of war, he has not allowed the killing of a
fetus.

Obviously God has allowed the killing of a fetus also. If he didn't, it
couldn't be done.

Steve

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Just How Safe Do You Feel?
From: "jps"
Date: 07/10/2003 09:16 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I see this idiot is still dumping all his OT "trash" into all the boating
NG's

Shen

Do you also see the hundreds of posts that have happened as a result?
People are interested in discussing and debating these issues. We happen to
have the common bond of boating.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

Otherwise, keep your OT posts offline and we'll not waste any bandwidth on
your stupidity.

jps

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Even if the humanitarian argument falls on deaf ears, the anti-taxation
crowd
ought to
try to realize that a $1000 in prevention is worth $100,000 in cure.

Now...hang on just a minute, Gould. Are you claiming that if someone gets
good grades and has marketable skills by the time they get out of high
school or college, they're less likely to rob people in dark alleys and
end
up in jail? That's quite an assumption. I'm gonna need to see some right
wing sources for THAT kind of theory.

smirk

Yeah, and I've not seen a stitch of evidence on any right wing news source
proving that food in the morning helps kids think. How much do you think
we're wasting on those kids each morning?