Originally Posted by trumptman
But by your logic, I'm not. See by your logic, the outcome isn't important, only the motives of the person rendering that action.
This doesn't make sense.... you claim that the outcome is not important from my pov yet later in your post you claim I would be 'all for' something if it delivered a specific outcome.
Thus if I wanted to pay people not to reproduce to avoid an excessive carbon footprint and a Malthusian disaster, you'd be all for it.
So I DO
care about outcomes????
Also isn't this part of abortion reasoning as well? Shouldn't all babies be wanted, desired, and raised only in homes in which they will be properly loved and cared for?
This makes no sense.
Clearly the reasoning of this person paying the addicts is the same position as the anti-abortionists which she is undoubtedly a subscriber to.
But it raises a key point - albeit unwittingly; it seems that these people only REALLY care, perhaps wrong word, let's say 'focus', only really focus on the baby.
I believe this is because, to them, in some warped fundie-thinking, the baby is somehow 'an innocent'. That is to say not like the scumbag mother who had sex or the sinning junkie destined to hell.
They don't care about real people
at all. A baby is a blank canvas which they can project their beliefs onto and quite possibly mold or brainwash....but the mother, the destitute reduced to drugs, the raped teenager......they can go to hell. Literally they hope.
The only point raised by this angle is where the reproduction is stopped. Those "fundies" as you call them don't like it being stopped after conception so they are paying to stop it before.
You speak truth for once. A similar experiment of 'stopping undesirable outcomes' was tried before last century I believe.
But the point is not 'where it is stopped' at all. It is why do some people think they have the right to stop things and impose their will on others who just want to live their lives?
It's a question you'd be better placed to answer than me but I'm not holding my breath...
Those agnostic or atheistic types don't mind it happening after reproduction so they are paying to stop it after.
It's about choices Trumpy.....you just don't get that do you?
It's odd but it's always the Right who champion choice and yet always the Right who try to curtail it.
If one is eugenics then "basically" so is the other.
Actually no. Because one is random and the result of a choice - a choice you may not wish to allow but a choice nonetheless - and the other is not a choice but someone imposing their beliefs on another person.
It is also class-based.
If not then why not pay the equivalent to rich junkies on a sliding scale? Fiar enough - 200 to John but what about Tabitha Hortense Ponsonby-Smythe - 200 is lunch to her..... put your money where your mouth is and pay her what the Right usually would argue she is worth.
Bankers in the City - they can snort enough Charlie of a lunchtime to sink the Bismarck and their bonuses buy more than a £10 bag...how about doshing them out £250,000 to do it.
Because it's class based.
It's not about drugs, addiction or dependency.
It's about preying on the weak and downtrodden of society as a precursor to 'saving their souls' or getting brownie points with the Man Upstairs.