ResidentContrarian has not created any debates.
1- Willfully killing another human being is murder. Anyone that has human DNA is a human being. Doing things that would stop the reproduction of their cells; starve them intentionally; stop their heart intentionally; etc. in order to end their life is by default murder. So yes, abortion is murder. 2 - The 3% claim is demonstrably false. Not only that, it is incredibly deceptive. It's like if McDonalds sold nothing but hamburger happy meals and then told you that hamburgers were only 15% of their business. It's obvious that the hamburger is a part of every purchase, and that every purchase is geared towards the hamburger. The fact that a soft drink, fries, a toy, or a box with pictures also comes with it doesn't change the fact that the business is geared towards the sale of the hamburgers. It's the same with Planned Parenthood. By admission of Cecile Richards before Congress as well as their own published numbers, abortion accounts for upwards of 80% and some years even 90% of their income; and 94% of all pregnant women doing business with Planned Parenthood get abortions. So the 3% "stat" is a misnomer. 3- Even if it were true and not deceptive, abortion should be 0% of what they do. It's like Nazis saying that killing Jews was only 7% of what they did. And the Nazis made a lot of medical advances during the time period of the Holocaust, due in large part to their experiments on groups like Jews and homosexuals. The medical advances do not justify the Holocaust. And likewise cancer screenings and stem cell research don't justify abortion/murder. 4- The organization does a huge disservice to women as it is. And they do so in many ways, but obviously abortion is the biggest. Many women leave with such remorse over what they did (for good reason) that they have a lifetime of grief; anger and/or depression. 1/3 of an entire generation was killed at their hands. Not to mention the many other risks and problems that come with abortion/murder. 5- A baby has their own unique, separate DNA from the moment of conception. They are their own separate human being. It is objectively wrong to kill them from conception onward. And the two people that procreated have an obligation to that child to raise, nurture and care for them...or at the very least carry the child to birth where the child can be adopted if the parents are truly unable to raise that child at all for some reason. Just like we don't allow people to kill toddlers, and demands of our bodies are made to care for and nurture infants/toddlers wholly dependant on us; so too it is wrong to kill a baby in the womb rather than care for and nurture them. 6- Planned Parenthood actually has practices that perpetuate the objectification of women; the spread of STDs that they test for; and the abuse/victimization of women. Supporting Planned Parenthood as they are now is the least woman-friendly thing we can do.
Civil forfeiture is unjust; oppressive and unconstitutional. It's objectively immoral to do so without going through a court trial and convicting the person of a crime against an actual victim in which the damages would necessitate the forfeiture of an asset rightfully. Arguments about police budgets are irrelevant. If the police start being allowed to act unjustly, then there is no purpose in having them unless that purpose is to oppress the population. Further, I would add that with MOST drug cases, which are a huge portion of civil forfeitures, there is usually not a real victim - with the exception of overdoses on heroin, etc. A dude with a pound of weed on him isn't bringing physical or material harm to another person or their property, and until the dude does, there's no crime that's been committed and certainly nothing worthy of losing one's assets. Due process is necessary. Having no unlawful searches or seizures is necessary. And we cannot call the state the victim, or literally anything can be an excuse to deprive someone of their hard-earned assets.
It is objectively good for people to be able to freely express thought to the point where they are able to offend one another (not that they have to). It is particularly good that on educational campuses and anywhere that you find young minds, that all viewpoints, especially controversial; minority or offensive ones are able to be rationally discussed. This is one of many reasons that our country cannot claim to possess most of the greatest minds in the world any longer. You need to be able to face opposing viewpoints, and also have the emotional maturity to answer them calmly and/or respectfully in order to grown mentally.
What is needed is not a minimum wage, per se. That's the wrong approach. And it creates a circular problem with circular arguments. One the one hand you are correct in a sense that it is immoral and unethical to have full-time jobs that don't provide a living wage for a family...living wage would necessitate that an individual or family would be able to afford housing, automobile, health care, food, utilities and still be able to have a savings. We should also assume that since so many in society are divorced, that it is still a living wage for those who pay child support for one child. So one 40-hour per week salary should absolutely be able to pay those things for a person in or near the community worked in. And we do need to take steps to ensure that happens. It is also correct that blindly setting a dollar amount is generally not helpful, and often harmful ultimately. And the people who usually get harmed the most are consumers and the employees, and occasionally the employers themselves. Minimum wage as a concept does indeed drive up cost to the consumer. So what's the solution? The answer is a CEO/Shareholder-to-Employee ratio. It does not put undue burden on the small business owner or startup, as they would already by default be paying much more of a percentage to their employees to be even remotely competitive. Because small businesses take in less revenue and their owners generally make less, obviously the ratio isn't a problem for them. What it does do though, is force large companies to no longer be able to use their enormous leverage to take advantage of employees. Everything cannot be about greed and margins. A CEO as example, could make as much as he/she wants. However, they would have to make sure that all of the employees, including the lowest-paid employee would still have a wage that meets that ratio...so you can't simply raise prices or lower employee wages to accomplish these things, you have to generate additional revenue...which means companies are forced to either expand to new markets or provide new or better value. Everyone wins. When employee wages would raise, or cost of living would go up, the greedy person (not all are greedy, but let's be real and admit greed is a big issue and driver of said problems) could not simply raise their own salary or raise the price of goods and keep all of the increase. They would have to take no more than the maximum allowable percentage, because employees wages would increase lockstep with all of the top people. My experience has been that any time people are allowed to be taken advantage of they will be, and everyone suffers for it. It is also my experience that when you create a system where everyone gets a reasonable benefit and looks out for each other's interests, they are more productive; happy and loyal on average.
Churches actually fall under section 508 and are automatically exempt. They do not need to file 501c3 if they do not want to. And that is a good thing. Churches especially, but any group, should be able to have a voice in the political discourse. I am so tired of hearing people attempting to silence the opposition if it is a non-profit by wanting to either punish them or damage them through taxation or to silence corporations...generally churches (though not always) will use their voice and influence towards a conservative bent politically. The problem is you don't see the same outcry from these same people complaining against Planned Parenthood as but one example. Planned Parenthood admitted before Congress under oath (Cecile Richards as their then-CEO and spokesperson), that they profit over 60 million dollars annually AFTER you take away government handouts to them. No church gets this from the government, AND they are considered a non-profit, which is clearly not the case. Beyond the arguments that I will lay out below, I think anyone who wants churches to be taxed should shut up unless they FIRST and foremost fight to tax Planned Parenthood and take away any government funding for them...otherwise they are hypocrites who feign a moral outrage to conceal the goal of silencing the opposition. I find deceit to be the most abhorrent of common evils. Anyhow, here are my arguments for why churches should not be taxed at all, in any way; shape or form: 1- God owns the entire earth and everything in it. The state does not own everything. More specifically and importantly the state does not own the Church and never has the right to any of the assets of the Church. 2- Taxation is theft. There is very little in the way of justifiable taxation to begin with. We should be seeking to tax fewer people and organizations, not more. It is moving in the wrong direction to seek to expand who can be taxed. 3- Churches offer services to the community far more effectively, efficiently and quickly than government agencies do. Often even more so than other non-profits, but certainly they are all far more efficient than the government. You have both money and resources being donated as well as time...in many cases the "ROI" on each dollar donated value-wise actually exceeds the amount donated. I've seen one parachurch ministry provide services that were valued at 400% of what the actual donations taken in were. The government provides services that are worth pennies on the dollars that are taxed. 4- Churches often (again, not always) have people that can and do actually help out individuals in their every day lives - and contrary to popular belief they ask for nothing in return. People are helped with food, clothing, housing, child care, transportation, help towards medical care, education, gaining job skills, financial management skills, etc. In many cases they have the breadth of human resources that any one government agency, and often collectively all of them, simply do not have and certainly do not efficiently administer to those who need them. 5- There's no unnecessary red tape. We need to return more of the services that we expect done for communities to churches and non-profits and move these things away from the state. This would especially include things like social safety nets, and such.