Quote:
Originally Posted by balok
You actually think you're doing your part by driving a hybrid. The automobile industry tricked you.
Said the cancer patient, "I like smoking and I don't want to give it up."
Ok, I'm being too hard on you. I don't really expect you to give up your car, and I applaud you for buying a hybrid instead of a gas guzzler. You're acting reasonably considering the circumstances. But you should recognize that this isn't the ideal solution. You should vote for a party that proposes to make fundamental changes to the transportation system and the urban landscape that will allow you to do without a car more often, instead of a party that proposes tax incentives for hybrids.
|
No solution is ever IDEAL. Something better usually comes along when we continue to investigate alternatives and external factors (like lobbyists) don't get in the way.
Quote:
Is than an unqualified right? I don't think people have an unconditional right to have children. In my opinion, state-subsidized fertility treatments are not within the scope of that right.
See previous quote: "Because people have a right to have children."
Besides, what I proposed is grounded in the right for those children to eat, not in the right of their parents to have children.
I just don't want to pay for it with my taxes. These people wait until they're nearly infertile because they want to be "financially secure" first, then the government pays for their fertility treatments. Talk about having your cake...
|
I agree with you, I wouldn't want to my taxes to pay for it either. I also don't want my takes to pay for people to get abortions. I believe people have the right to make those choices, though.
As for an "unqualified right", I already stated that people should be more circumspective about procreation. So, in a way, I have qualified the right.