<p>I’m hardly a liberal; I’m just as fiercely anti-abortion as I am communist, and from the same value. However, economically speaking, “liberal” doesn’t go far enough. Reform isn’t enough; it is better to tear the system down and build it anew. Otherwise, we’re just dressing it up to hide some of the rot.</p>
<p>
The poor. Studies have shown (I forget exactly which ones but I can find the stats again if you really want) that the lower class gives much more of their income (proportionally) than the wealthy, so people who realize how important money is would in fact be willing to give their money away for a good cause. </p>
<p>
Excuse me?? How can you say that the suffering of the wealthy is anywhere close to that of the poor? Of course everybody has troubles of their own, and the wealth can sometimes face a lot of pressure, but that’s nothing compared to worrying about whether or not your next paycheck is going to be enough to keep your family from starving to death, or whether you can pay for medical expenses vital to your survival. </p>
<p>
Do you actually believe that? A few people are able to pull themselves out, and that’s why people who only pay the slightest attention to how the world works thinks that it’s possible for anyone who works hard. The capitalist system works against the poor, and because of this, poor people who work harder than the rich can still end up getting nowhere. </p>
<p>
Thankfully, you’re right there. But just because our poor are better off than they were before, or better off than the poor of other countries, doesn’t mean that they are overall well off or that they don’t need more help getting out of the cycle of poverty. </p>
<p>
First of all, capitalism has never truly worked; it always ends up giving power to the wealthy, who use that power to retain their wealth. And the reason that it doesn’t work is because capitalism lets greed run rampant, so people don’t have to help one another. The reason why the poor stay poor under capitalism is because the rich don’t put money back into the economy; they hoard it, and that’s why the trickle down theory doesn’t actually work. </p>
<p>Let me clarify my position by making clear that I’m vehemently anti-communist; communism and capitalism both seem to have their merits on paper, but both have inherent failures that would lead to a collapse (capitalism ignores the masses and puts money in the hands of the rich, while communism takes care of everyone but takes away the motivation to succeed). I don’t understand why people feel the need to support one of the extremes, when the most practical system would be somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity Billy, in your communist utopia, would abortion be outlawed?</p>
<p>
It wouldn’t be a utopia, it wouldn’t be an easy world, but it would be a better world.</p>
<p>And yes; the right to life is universal to every human being, be they black, white, male, female, poor, unborn, sick, what have you. The slaughter of millions of human beings a year ought not be tolerated.</p>
<p>I’d have to agree. In a better world like you suggest, abortion seems unnecessary.</p>
<p>Where is your angry anti-wealth rhetoric coming from? Stop being jealous and get a job/focus on education so you can make money and give it to all the starving africans who are getting slaughtered as you put it. Sheesh.</p>
<p>Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using CC App</p>
<p>
The accumulation of wealth in a capitalistic system usually creates greater negative effects than those that can be alleviated by that wealth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rights don’t really exist outside of human consciousness, if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>
So this is your opinion.</p>
<p>How would you define a right. What does that word mean to you?</p>
<p>Human rights are things that a human is entitled to by the very nature of his/her humanity. Life, liberty, equality. “Human” could better be replaced by “sentient,” assuming the presence of non-human intelligence.</p>
<p>To quote the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”</p>
<p>The essence of communist principles: I do not want to feel responsible for helping my fellow people, so I will create commissions to “solve” these problems for me. I am not virtuous, nor am I sinful because I have no ability to choose between the two.
The essence of capitalist principles: If I can find the morality and compassion within myself to give to others, I will because it is my choice to do so. As a human, I have the agency to decide for myself what causes I am willing to support.</p>
<p>
Communism: All must be equal, the poor must not suffer, no one should be rich when so many live in squalor and death.</p>
<p>Capitalism: Having many be poor is worth it for the few who are rich and the system will perpetuate because the power is in the hands of those rich.</p>
<p>Also, I find it amusing that you use “sinful,” a word with religious connotations, in your explanation in favor of capitalism. Capitalism is against principles of all the world’s religions, though some (especially Christianity) are more opposed to it than others.</p>
<p>You’re right, it is more possible to give to charity in a capitalistic system, because charity is actually needed, do to the oppressive actions of the rich. However, you are wrong in that communism is taking responsibility for the well-being of your fellow man.</p>
<p>
Just curious, how do you feel about abortion in the case of rape or a threat to the life of the mother? I completely understand your opposition to abortion (I’m personally pro-choice but I do get where you’re coming from), but why do you think it’s ok to control what women do with their bodies? I’m not trying to be accusatory; I want to understand where you’re coming from. Obviously an infant’s right to life and a woman’s right to control her own body are both very important, so what makes you choose that side?</p>
<p>
In the case of rape, I do not believe that the crimes of the father are the crimes of the child, so I do not think abortion any more justified in that scenario. In the case of a threat to the life of the mother, it is very tragic, yet one human being cannot kill another innocent human being to save their own life. The infant is not intentionally causing a medical issue and is innocent of any crime.</p>
<p>Women can do what they want with their own bodies, but I become concerned when the body of another human being is involved. It stops being an issue of personal liberty at that point and starts being an issue of murder.</p>
<p>If you like, I could post a deductively valid pure hypothetical syllogism proving that abortion is murder.</p>
<p>
The child wouldn’t be to blame, but how can you expect a woman who has been through such a traumatic experience to live with the reminder of that trauma every day for 9 months?</p>
<p>
You do realize that in many of these cases the baby would die as well? Let’s just take that situation; if they would both die without an abortion, wouldn’t it be better to at least save one life?</p>
<p>
The woman’s trauma is tragic, but it isn’t okay for her to kill another human being, even if it makes her feel better.</p>
<p>
There is no medical certainty in such things. This was the scenario presented to Tim Tebow’s mother, but she refused to kill her child and they both survived and are healthy today.</p>
<p>To quote the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” </p>
<p>Thought it was important.</p>
<p>Billy, just curious. In a communist world, how do people get to decide what jobs they’ll have? We’re all taking care of each other, right?</p>
<p>
It’s okay, my favorite was always “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”</p>
<p>
Not quite sure yet. It would be similar in that there would be a need for X doctors and Y mechanics and Z farmers in each region and there would be opportunity to gain training and education.</p>