Consistent Conservatism

[Archaeopteryx]

I think there are going to be a lot of peeved womyn when they find out they didn't have to keep the fetus inside of their body to give birth. But for this thread I can adjust what was placed in bold and simply state: a fetus is not recognized as an individual by Law. Another example would be if an illegal immigrant is in the US and pregnant neither she nor the fetus is a Citizen. The fetus becomes a Citizen only after fully developing and being born. Claiming the fetus is an individual means it is a Citizen before it's born. That doesn't make m±ch sense.

Regardless of the legality of the situation in which individuality is conferred only upon birth (a rather precarious measurement itself) the fetus is very much biologically an individual living human organism distinct from the mother. It is an entity of its own worthy of the distinction between self and other. It is not merely a growth projecting from the mother, for if it were it would retain only the mother's genotype; instead it retains its own unique genotype - a biochemical identity set at conception.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

You are not making any sense here. Welfare recipients are not being indemnified.

To indemnify is:

1. to secure against hurt, loss, or damage

2. to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage


When someone loses their job and cannot obtain employment that is a "loss" so by definition Welfare is indemnification for a loss.

There was more to the quoted post...any chance of demonstrating what kind of insurance the peeps had with the Fed gov? Or has the "insurance industry" angle been properly dropped?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Regardless of the legality of the situation in which individuality is conferred only upon birth (a rather precarious measurement itself) the fetus is very much biologically an individual living human organism distinct from the mother. It is an entity of its own worthy of the distinction between self and other. It is not merely a growth projecting from the mother, for if it were it would retain only the mother's genotype; instead it retains its own unique genotype - a biochemical identity set at conception.

So let's say all of that is correct...how does it change the point the government should not invade the privacy of what's between their legs?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So let's say all of that is correct...how does it change the point the government should not invade the privacy of what's between their legs?

That question leads inextricably into the entire abortion debate itself and the ethical consideration of when anyone possesses the moral responsibility to intervene, in a violation of privacy, to protect another individual from harm or negligence.
Let's turn to a hypothetical scenario. A pregnant woman, out of frustration, severely punches herself in the abdomen. None-the-less, without complication, an individual is born later. However, this individual now retains a neurological disorder that was caused absolutely by the severe blow it received from its mother while she was pregnant. Are we to suggest that the mother's action was completely justified by her right to privacy (and therefore a private decision) simply because the individual in question was separated from the outside world by a wall of flesh? Privacy can therefore be used to rationalize any action done by a mother to her unborn offspring, even if the child is not aborted. Is it fair to an individual to be born with a condition resulting from pre-natal abuse that is justified simply by the word 'privacy'?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Regardless of the legality of the situation in which individuality is conferred only upon birth (a rather precarious measurement itself) the fetus is very much biologically an individual living human organism distinct from the mother. It is an entity of its own worthy of the distinction between self and other. It is not merely a growth projecting from the mother, for if it were it would retain only the mother's genotype; instead it retains its own unique genotype - a biochemical identity set at conception.

Since this is a debate on the Law of abortion the legality of personhood is the center of discussion. Since two separate persons can have the same genotype yet be distinct individuals I suggest not referencing that because it implies a lack of biological knowledge while trying to use biology as a defense. What is the legal justification for government to be the Vagina Police?

 

[jamesrwright3]

To indemnify is:

1. to secure against hurt, loss, or damage

2. to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage


When someone loses their job and cannot obtain employment that is a "loss" so by definition Welfare is indemnification for a loss.

Yes, that is true if you had a job to begin with. There should be a cutoff for welfare..6 months..which is under the current system. People also have to limit their losses so while being unemployed they have to be constantly looking for work. However, paying people like this woman whose job is having babies is ridiculous. Either A-she should have to get a job or B, the kids should be given to a family that won't feed off of the government tit. She is obviously a wack job for having in vitro while she was on welfare.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Yes, that is true if you had a job to begin with. There should be a cutoff for welfare..6 months..which is under the current system. People also have to limit their losses so while being unemployed they have to be constantly looking for work. However, paying people like this woman whose job is having babies is ridiculous. Either A-she should have to get a job or B, the kids should be given to a family that won't feed off of the government tit. She is obviously a wack job for having in vitro while she was on welfare.

Judging this one person's position is wholly irrelevent to the current discussion. It was claimed she should not be able to vote because she has received welfare so I asked if this no-vote platform was equally advocated for those who received welfare from the Bush admin?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Judging this one person's position is wholly irrelevent to the current discussion. It was claimed she should not be able to vote because she has received welfare so I asked if this no-vote platform was equally advocated for those who received welfare from the Bush admin?

There is a difference between unemployement and chronic welfare.
People on unemployment have worked. A lot of people on welfare do not work, and do not want to work. People on welfare should not be able to vote because it will create a dependency class that will keep voting in the people that won't turn off the money taps. See my quote from Ben Franklin.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

There is a difference between unemployement and chronic welfare.
People on unemployment have worked. A lot of people on welfare do not work, and do not want to work. People on welfare should not be able to vote because it will create a dependency class that will keep voting in the people that won't turn off the money taps. See my quote from Ben Franklin.

Nobody was discussing chronic welfare nor comparing welfare to unemployment and I will not feed into those obvious attempts of derailing the discussion to be successful.

The defense of the double standard was the claim the welfare given by the Bush admin was "indemnification" but the very definition of the word clearly applies to welfare. Pointing to individuals who may abuse welfare does nothing to address the fact welfare is indemnification.

So for the last time, was this no-vote platform equally advocated for those who received welfare from the Bush admin?,


(Iam sure most of us already know the answer so an admission of the double standard isn't necessary which is why I have backed away from the brick wall and will not keep asking the same question that gets repeatedly dodged.)

 

[jamesrwright3]

The defense of the double standard was the claim the welfare given by the Bush admin was "indemnification" but the very definition of the word clearly applies to welfare. Pointing to individuals who may abuse welfare does nothing to address the fact welfare is indemnification.

LOL it does not meet the definition. Indemnification means made whole. It means you had to have suffered a loss. An example would be being paid for totaling out your car. Welfare is like being paid for a car you didn't own and didn't pay insurance on. Many of the people in the Towers were earning significant sums, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Their lifetime earnings would have exceeded the 1.6 million dollars that was given to their families. Those people are being made whole.

To show people on welfare are being indemnified, you would need to show that their earnings should be as high or higher than the benefits they are receiving. They would also have a duty to mitigate their damages by trying to work and not sitting at home to watch the view.

So for the last time, was this no-vote platform equally advocated for those who received welfare from the Bush admin?,

It was not welfare. It was indemnification.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

LOL it does not meet the definition. Indemnification means made whole. It means you had to have suffered a loss. An example would be being paid for totaling out your car. Welfare is like being paid for a car you didn't own and didn't pay insurance on. Many of the people in the Towers were earning significant sums, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Their lifetime earnings would have exceeded the 1.6 million dollars that was given to their families. Those people are being made whole.

To show people on welfare are being indemnified, you would need to show that their earnings should be as high or higher than the benefits they are receiving. They would also have a duty to mitigate their damages by trying to work and not sitting at home to watch the view.

So the insurance industry standard is being re-applied. Can it be shown where the Citizens had an Insurance Policy with the Federal Government?

It was not welfare. It was indemnification.

Geez. Isn't that where this discussion began? (Definitely done with this particular discussion. I've been checkmated and I've lost...I'm all about the efficiency!)

 

[jamesrwright3]

]So the insurance industry standard is being re-applied. Can it be shown where the Citizens had an Insurance Policy with the Federal Government?

It was a unique situation, but it saved our domestic airlines. Regardless whether or not the money came from the government it was still indemnification. The airlines have policies, but the insurers have policy limits so they would not have been able to cover the costs and possible exclusions would have applied i..e policies generally do not cover acts of war. The Federal Government is the only entity that had the resources available to help compensate these people. It's the same as the goverment helping out during a natural disaster i.e. hurricane or flood. It's indemnification..not a payment for doing nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_Victim_Compensation_Fund

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Welfare in a pretty skirt is still welfare.

 

[jamesrwright3]

It's not welfare. If I buy a car and purchase insurance on it and total it out and get paid for it, it's not welfare.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It's not welfare. If I buy a car and purchase insurance on it and total it out and get paid for it, it's not welfare.

So what insurance policy did the recipents have with the Fed government? What was the name of it and is this policy still available? How much were the premiums?

 

[jamesrwright3]

So what insurance policy did the recipents have with the Fed government? What was the name of it and is this policy still available? How much were the premiums?

Pointless to go on further. You obviously don't understand the difference between indemnification and welfare.

 

[JustOneWay]

Pointless to go on further. You obviously don't understand the difference between indemnification and welfare.

lol


Which means there was no insurance policy or any justifiable reason to pay the families of the victims that you can recall or post.


....they were compensated out of compassion instead of obligation.


Sounds a lot like charity

 

[jamesrwright3]

lol


Which means there was no insurance policy or any justifiable reason to pay the families of the victims that you can recall or post.


....they were compensated out of compassion instead of obligation.


Sounds a lot like charity

All depends if you think airline travel is important to the economic wellbeing of the United States and whether or not any insurer could afford to insure terrorism on its own..which no single insurer could..Hence..the government is the insurer of last resort and is currently in a partnership with private industry to insure terrorism. Regardless. it's indemnification and not welfare. I have explained it any times. It appears people are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[JustOneWay]

All depends if you think airline travel is important to the economic wellbeing of the United States and whether or not any insurer could afford to insure terrorism on its own..which no single insurer could..Hence..the government is the insurer of last resort and is currently in a partnership with private industry to insure terrorism. Regardless. it's indemnification and not welfare. I have explained it any times. It appears people are being intentionally obtuse.

lol

technically, the government money was an out of court settlement.


obtuse always reminds my of The Shawshank Redemption

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Pointless to go on further. You obviously don't understand the difference between indemnification and welfare.

A car insurance policy was used to justify claiming they did not receive welfare so it's sorta kinda maybe just a teensy bit relevent to point out it must be shown what insurance policy they had with the federal government. Not only is the position a double standard but the defense of it is as well.

So yes, I agree if someone is indemnified due to loss or damage covered by an insurance policy it is not welfare. By your own criteria an insurance policy must be in effect prior to the catastrophic event for it to qualify as indemnification. For the 5th time...what ins policy did the families have with the fed government? (Or will the car insurance analogy suddenly be dropped thus affording a veiled attempt at ignoring the question about 5 times?)