Widgets Magazine
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 220
  1. #76

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    It's the anti-science part that bothers me, I knew he was pro-life, but didn't know he was anti-science (at least in this case). Just another thing that makes OK look backwards again.
    I think I would lay off the science as support for abortion business. It's a loser.

    That being said, it is incongruous with a pro-death penalty position.

  2. #77

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    I don't know what the affordable care act says on the matter, but if they can write a clause that will terminate medicaid expansion if the federal government can't pay their share of the deal I will support it.
    This. The whole point was to overwhelm the system to lead to single payer. It's out now. Why do they even do the dance anymore?

  3. #78

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    So advocating for the banishment of third trimester abortions. It's a start but I'll take it.
    I know this has been in the news lately and Trump has harped about it, but the fact is people arent waiting until the 3rd trimester to decide they arent ready for the child. These are practically all cases of there being a severe development problem that wont allow the child to survive. I dont want to force people to have to deliver a dead baby or one that will die within minutes or hours.

  4. #79

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    His comments were off the cuff, and part of a longer discussion. He actually had the exact same position as Edmondson on vaccination, but the DB tried successfully to create this narrative, and succeeded. You'll find every single article out there references the same inaccurate DB story. Stitt and his campaign clear up his position a long time ago. He was also very clear that he didn't support new laws making it easier for folks to take exemptions. He was happy with the laws in Oklahoma the way they are, in regards to vaccination.

    Feeling that as a parent you should be involved in discussing your children's health and vaccinations with the doctor, and be involved in the decision making process is not anti-vax. It's good parenting. There are optional vaccines out there that parents may not want to give to their kids, or at least would like to understand why and the risks. This is very different than the vaccines that are required for public health by the school systems and those obviously should be administered if you want your children to attend public schools.

    Edit. (Relevant)

    https://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion...e97babc77.html

  5. #80

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    While I can see the inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-death penalty, I'm anti-death penalty so can't speak for them specifically. However I can see how someone could be both. I can understand seeing a difference between society condoning the murder of innocent children, and society condoning the murder of convicted killers. (For folks that see those things that way)

  6. Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    While I can see the inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-death penalty, I'm anti-death penalty so can't speak for them specifically. However I can see how someone could be both. I can understand seeing a difference between society condoning the murder of innocent children, and society condoning the murder of convicted killers. (For folks that see those things that way)
    Some people don't condone "the murder of innocent children", they condone a woman having the choice to abort a collection of cells that might become a human at some point in the future.

  7. #82

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Some people don't condone "the murder of innocent children", they condone a woman having the choice to abort a collection of cells that might become a human at some point in the future.
    What else do these "cells" turn into?

    Remember when I said you should drop the science part of this argument. Yeah, you really should stick to that.

  8. #83

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Some people don't condone "the murder of innocent children", they condone a woman having the choice to abort a collection of cells that might become a human at some point in the future.
    Clap. Good for you. What's your comment have to do with understanding both positions (pro life, pro death penalty)? I'm not arguing a position on abortion.

    Also, there's evidently lots of concern for how your position is described/labelled. Sort of hypocritical considering your post just a few up. But goose and gander and all that I guess.

  9. #84

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    What else do these "cells" turn into?

    Remember when I said you should drop the science part of this argument. Yeah, you really should stick to that.
    I always find it amusing that the political slant that most often cries and claims to be pro science has half of their platform based on feelings and "fairness". I don't let the right off for basing some of their platform on religion, but at least they're honest about it.

  10. #85

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    The cells stop where the woman begins, the same way that the child stops where the parents begin after it is born.

    Whatever ethical and moral discussion you have about when cells become people, but the simple fact is that none of us can be forced to undergo or not undergo a medical procedure for another human. We can’t be forced to give blood, we can’t be forced to donate an organ, all our medical decisions are our own. Being pregnant doesn’t change that, and a woman has the same right to any medical procedure wether she is pregnant or not. It’s not an emotional argument, it’s a legal argument.

  11. Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Clap. Good for you. What's your comment have to do with understanding both positions (pro life, pro death penalty)? I'm not arguing a position on abortion.

    Also, there's evidently lots of concern for how your position is described/labelled. Sort of hypocritical considering your post just a few up. But goose and gander and all that I guess.
    It was an explanation of being anti-death-penalty and pro-choice - some people don't think a collection of cells is a human (until some point) and aborting it isn't killing a human, whereas the death penalty is killing a human.

  12. #87

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by d-usa View Post
    Whatever ethical and moral discussion you have about when cells become people, but the simple fact is that none of us can be forced to undergo or not undergo a medical procedure for another human. We can’t be forced to give blood, we can’t be forced to donate an organ, all our medical decisions are our own.
    Seems like a good anti-vaxxer argument. And it's not true. There are medical decisions you don't have control over.

    It's only even partway true for abortions, but that can change in one way or another and even now there are limits (late term abortions, etc).

  13. #88

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Seems like a good anti-vaxxer argument.
    no, actually it isn't... because vaccination requirements aren't for those who get the Vaccinations, it's about protecting those who are not able to get vaccinations due to health issues, or age. it's about protecting one person from the decisions of another person... herd vaccination works, and has a long track record of good to great results in protecting those who are too weak to get vaccinated. The legal argument here, is that it is protecting those who can not protect themselves, which is one of the main purposes of government.

  14. #89

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by jedicurt View Post
    no, actually it isn't... because vaccination requirements aren't for those who get the Vaccinations, it's about protecting those who are not able to get vaccinations due to health issues, or age. it's about protecting one person from the decisions of another person... herd vaccination works, and has a long track record of good to great results in protecting those who are too weak to get vaccinated. The legal argument here, is that it is protecting those who can not protect themselves, which is one of the main purposes of government.
    I'm not sure what you're replying to me for, since you're just supporting my statement (unless you thought I was saying it was a valid argument, which would mean you missed the following sentence). Did you read what I was replying to?

    "none of us can be forced to undergo or not undergo a medical procedure for another human"

  15. #90

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    And maybe I'm missing something on your post, or misreading your intent.

  16. #91

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    It was an explanation of being anti-death-penalty and pro-choice - some people don't think a collection of cells is a human (until some point) and aborting it isn't killing a human, whereas the death penalty is killing a human.
    I’m not supporting or opposing the death penalty, but you are talking about an innocent child vs. a murderer. How are those two things comparable?

  17. #92

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    I’m not supporting or opposing the death penalty, but you are talking about an innocent child vs. a murderer. How are those two things comparable?
    Having this level of cognitive dissonance on display is quite remarkable.

  18. #93

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    So, in summary.

    Vaccinations are good, and should be forced on all for the good of the collective.

    But abortion is also good even though it has known detrimental effects to the collective (the baby that is).

    Cognitive dissonance is a thing, and you guys are providing an excellent example of it.

    Seems logic would demand that one either be:

    For vacinations, against abortion, against death penalty

    or

    Anti-Vax, pro-abort, pro-death penalty

  19. #94

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    What if Jesus had been aborted? Then we'd all be damned. So ya know there's a pro abortion argument.
    Don't hassle me, I'm local.

  20. Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    I’m not supporting or opposing the death penalty, but you are talking about an innocent child vs. a murderer. How are those two things comparable?
    It depends on when you think "innocent child" begins - at conception, at 2 weeks, at 26 weeks, when a certain set of brain waves is detected, at birth...

    And as I said earlier, the death penalty is not advantageous over life without parole in any way, among many other reasons to oppose it.

    So in one instance, you'd be killing an actual person, albeit one that murdered somebody, and in the other, it's not really a person yet, so you're not killing "an innocent child", in some people's view.

  21. #96

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    It depends on when you think "innocent child" begins - at conception, at 2 weeks, at 26 weeks, when a certain set of brain waves is detected, at birth...

    And as I said earlier, the death penalty is not advantageous over life without parole in any way, among many other reasons to oppose it.

    So in one instance, you'd be killing an actual person, albeit one that murdered somebody, and in the other, it's not really a person yet, so you're not killing "an innocent child", in some people's view.
    I have no clue what you are on about with the “innocent child” but when I used that term I was referring to the fact that child hasn’t murdered or taken a life. There are clear legal definitions and a judicial process that ones goes through that renders them guilty.

    So I ask again, how is a convicted murderer comparable to a fetus that has convicted no crime?

  22. #97

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    I have no clue what you are on about with the “innocent child” but when I used that term I was referring to the fact that child hasn’t murdered or taken a life. There are clear legal definitions and a judicial process that ones goes through that renders them guilty.

    So I ask again, how is a convicted murderer comparable to a fetus that has convicted no crime?
    If someone (not me) believed the fetus is just a growth, a collection of cells, then an abortion is no different than a hair cut, or a manicure. In that case, executing a serial killer is much worse than having an abortion.

  23. #98

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    It depends on when you think "innocent child" begins - at conception, at 2 weeks, at 26 weeks, when a certain set of brain waves is detected, at birth...

    And as I said earlier, the death penalty is not advantageous over life without parole in any way, among many other reasons to oppose it.

    So in one instance, you'd be killing an actual person, albeit one that murdered somebody, and in the other, it's not really a person yet, so you're not killing "an innocent child", in some people's view.
    Murderer - in our book is someone who has been charged and convicted in a court of law with taking the life of another.

    Innocent child - "it depends"?

  24. #99

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Murderer - in our book is someone who has been charged and convicted in a court of law with taking the life of another.

    Innocent child - "it depends"?
    So if read you right it really doesn't matter in your book if they actually killed somebody or not?
    Don't hassle me, I'm local.

  25. #100

    Default Re: Governor Stitt - Surprising Start

    Quote Originally Posted by Stew View Post
    So if read you right it really doesn't matter in your book if they actually killed somebody or not?
    That sums up my problem with the death penalty pretty well. There's not some touchy feely "we can't kill murderers" mindset. It's that the death penalty doesn't come with an eraser.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cornett paying 5-1 on Predictit to beat Stitt
    By TheSteveHunt in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2018, 08:17 AM
  2. Surprising Face of a First American
    By kelroy55 in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-09-2015, 09:05 AM
  3. 15 Surprising Facts About Immigration
    By Prunepicker in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-14-2013, 01:13 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 11:01 AM
  5. Governor
    By mranderson in forum Politics
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 05:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO