Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2006-01-26 13:29:11
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6724|Wherever the F**k i feel like

Stubbee wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
SO you would force a woman, rape victim, to carry it to term? What if the guy was HIV positive? You want to bring an HIV positive baby into the world?

It isnt just black and white.

This is what happens when religion gets involved with government. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Countries that don't have separation of church and state: Most of the middle east. You wanna go down that road? They seem like such wonderful countries, especially for women!
alright i did nto take into account all factors
rape= addoption
hiv= addoption
going to kill mother= abbortion
anythign else=addoption
2006-01-26 13:34:34
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6747|Salt Lake City

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
SO you would force a woman, rape victim, to carry it to term? What if the guy was HIV positive? You want to bring an HIV positive baby into the world?

It isnt just black and white.

This is what happens when religion gets involved with government. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Countries that don't have separation of church and state: Most of the middle east. You wanna go down that road? They seem like such wonderful countries, especially for women!
alright i did nto take into account all factors
rape= addoption
hiv= addoption
going to kill mother= abbortion
anythign else=addoption
You are one sadistic SOB.  Anyone that would force some one that was a victim of rape to carry a baby to term, against their will, is the lowest form of life.  But obviously, you like many pro-life lawmakers, are men and don't have that problem.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-26 13:34:55)

2006-01-26 13:34:49
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

DakkonBlackblade wrote:

As an aside, you don't want government funds paying for an abortion but you are fine paying for 18 years of caring for that child?  If she can't pay for an abortion today you think she can care for a newborn in 9 months?  Adoption?  Well until (IF!) the kid gets adopted the government has to pay for their wellbeing.
No, I don't want to pay for that child at all. If I had no part in making it, it's not my responsibility. Not a penny of my money should ever go to feed, clothe, or shelter that child unless I decide to do so myself. There are many people out there willing to adopt; the problem is that most of the time the mothers will change their minds after the birth or screw the kids up so much in the first couple years that adoption becomes a much bigger challenge.

It'd be nice if we could require IQ tests and financial statements before being allowed to raise a child but that would be pretty anti-freedom and all so it wouldn't jive.
2006-01-26 13:40:19
DakkonBlackblade
Member
+0|6756

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
SO you would force a woman, rape victim, to carry it to term? What if the guy was HIV positive? You want to bring an HIV positive baby into the world?

It isnt just black and white.

This is what happens when religion gets involved with government. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Countries that don't have separation of church and state: Most of the middle east. You wanna go down that road? They seem like such wonderful countries, especially for women!
alright i did nto take into account all factors
rape= addoption
hiv= addoption
going to kill mother= abbortion
anythign else=addoption
At what level do you consider it 'going to kill the mother'?  Every child birth has a chance to kill the mother.

http://www.populationaction.org/resourc … earing.htm
2006-01-26 13:55:36
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

I think you are missing the point.  My argument is that if you are not willing to take responsibility for the results of sex, then don't have it.  You can have sex and take precaustions like birth control, knowing you partners cycle, ect. but that is part of being responsible.  If your only recourse for Oh no she is  pregnant is to kill it, then you are not ready for the responsibilitys that come with sex.

By the way i am 25 and have 2 children and one on the way.  My wife had one miscarage and even though it was not a planned pregnancy we did mourn the lost opportunity.  Life is something to be charishied and fought for. 

Yall be happy, have sex, just know that you may have a child and that child is your responsibility from conception.  If the life is not meant to be then nature will take its course.
I know, technically, that you haven't said you would support the banning of abortion, but it does seem like this is what you would like.  And what I'm saying is that it'd be irresponsible for them to do it.  The government will never be able to ensure someone is "ready" and "responsible" enough to have sex, ever.  Banning abortion would just force people who aren't ready for the responsibility of sex or child-rearing to have and potentially rear the child.  And, potentially, at the taxpayers expense (which is not necessarily something I wouldn't be willing to pay for, but I know there are those who wouldn't).

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

alright i did nto take into account all factors
rape= addoption
hiv= addoption
going to kill mother= abbortion
anythign else=addoption
Wow dude, that is real rough.  You obviously have no idea what carrying a child is like.  Let alone the child of someone who raped you.  A nine month reminder that some dude jumped you, kicked the shit outta you, then raped you (yeah, i almost went into a much more detailed description of this, but i'll save the rest of you)  is pretty freakin' painful.  I wonder how many of thsoe women would end up committing suicide just because of that.

Man, please don't tell me you're serious.
2006-01-26 14:21:12
DakkonBlackblade
Member
+0|6756

FeloniousMonk wrote:

DakkonBlackblade wrote:

As an aside, you don't want government funds paying for an abortion but you are fine paying for 18 years of caring for that child?  If she can't pay for an abortion today you think she can care for a newborn in 9 months?  Adoption?  Well until (IF!) the kid gets adopted the government has to pay for their wellbeing.
No, I don't want to pay for that child at all. If I had no part in making it, it's not my responsibility. Not a penny of my money should ever go to feed, clothe, or shelter that child unless I decide to do so myself. There are many people out there willing to adopt; the problem is that most of the time the mothers will change their minds after the birth or screw the kids up so much in the first couple years that adoption becomes a much bigger challenge.

It'd be nice if we could require IQ tests and financial statements before being allowed to raise a child but that would be pretty anti-freedom and all so it wouldn't jive.
Well 2% of the population adopts.  http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm  That's roughly 6 million people, so 3 million prospective adoptions since only married couples are doing the adopting  http://education.yahoo.com/reference/fa … opula.html  and with a little more than 1.3 million abortions performed annually  http://www.frtl.org/abortion/national%20statistics.htm exactly how long do you expect it to be before you have government homes full of unwanted kids?  3 years? 4?

Like it or not, if you force women to carry to term you will pay for those unwanted children eventualy.  Either directly through cash for food, clothing, and an education or indirectly through crime and disease.
2006-01-26 14:25:22
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746
Um, I never advocated forcing women to carry to term. Simply that I don't want to pay for it. At all. Regardless if she has an abortion or not, it's not my responsibility and not a penny of my money should go to that woman for any reason unless I decide to give it to her.
2006-01-26 14:49:43
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|6692|Dayton, Ohio
just a suggestion for rape victim topic.  If i am not mistaken, the moring after pill that is suppost to block conception is available as part of the rape kit if the victim is willing to to go to the hospital.  Assuming that pill works then an abotion would not be neccessary.  Knowing it wouldn't be full proof there would have to be some provision for aborting in the first 2-3 months because of the emotional scaring.  Enter the loop holes for exploitation and hense the reason that litigation will never be effective in this area.  The topic is too complicated to simplify hense the reason it has not been effectivly dealt with to this point. 

I do think the laws of notifying parents of teenagers before they can perform an abortion is on the right track.  Also possibly requiring some sort of counseling after the fact to help the women deal with their decision may help prevent repeat abortions by the same couples.

Oh well, so much for solving the worlds problems in the forums.
2006-01-26 15:02:10
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6707|NJ
It's just a way to kill time at work my man.
I have to say that I agree with the notifyng parents of teenagers as well, but that's really iffy.  The only real way that would work is if the parents make the child have the baby they have to take care of the baby intill the girl is 18 or 24 if she goes to school.

Most women who get raped feel partially responsable or embarrised about the situation(in most cases of date rape) so they don't go to the hospital.
2006-01-26 16:06:02
DakkonBlackblade
Member
+0|6756

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Um, I never advocated forcing women to carry to term. Simply that I don't want to pay for it. At all. Regardless if she has an abortion or not, it's not my responsibility and not a penny of my money should go to that woman for any reason unless I decide to give it to her.
It doesnt matter if you don't want to.  You WILL in someway pay, you can't get around it.  You either pay to help subsidize abortions for the poor, or you pay for the welfare of the unwanted child, or if you are a tax dodger you pay in higher crime rates and lower country productivity.  You may not feel it's right for you to pay, but you have no choice.
2006-01-26 21:30:37
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746
but you have no choice.
It's attitudes like that which destroy the principles this nation was founded on. Y'know that whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" concept? Yeah it's supposed to remind us that government only holds power because WE decide to recognize its' authority. To think that government policy like socialist wealth distribution is unchangable only helps to keep those problems from ever going away.
2006-01-27 05:19:02
DakkonBlackblade
Member
+0|6756
Please don't dilute a 72 word post into 5 words and act like that encompasses what I said.  Of the people means the majority, not the oneguys opinion.  So if most people want to pay for it, YOU pay for it.  There is no socialism here, you will pay for that child at some point in its life cycle.  Before it is born, to raise it, or as it commits crimes against society, there is no way around that no matter what form of government your country holds to.  You never did answer to the fact that no matter what you would view as your 'right' the fact remains that you must pay for a small fraction of that child/abortion no matter what.
2006-01-27 09:08:20
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6782|Atlanta, GA USA

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

just a suggestion for rape victim topic.  If i am not mistaken, the moring after pill that is suppost to block conception is available as part of the rape kit if the victim is willing to to go to the hospital.  Assuming that pill works then an abotion would not be neccessary.  Knowing it wouldn't be full proof there would have to be some provision for aborting in the first 2-3 months because of the emotional scaring.  Enter the loop holes for exploitation and hense the reason that litigation will never be effective in this area.  The topic is too complicated to simplify hense the reason it has not been effectivly dealt with to this point. 

I do think the laws of notifying parents of teenagers before they can perform an abortion is on the right track.  Also possibly requiring some sort of counseling after the fact to help the women deal with their decision may help prevent repeat abortions by the same couples.

Oh well, so much for solving the worlds problems in the forums.
The anti-abortion groups are also against the morning-after pill...
2006-01-27 09:35:12
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

DakkonBlackblade wrote:

Please don't dilute a 72 word post into 5 words and act like that encompasses what I said.  Of the people means the majority, not the oneguys opinion.  So if most people want to pay for it, YOU pay for it.  There is no socialism here, you will pay for that child at some point in its life cycle.  Before it is born, to raise it, or as it commits crimes against society, there is no way around that no matter what form of government your country holds to.  You never did answer to the fact that no matter what you would view as your 'right' the fact remains that you must pay for a small fraction of that child/abortion no matter what.
It most certainly does encompass what you said. The rest of your post is meaningless drivel compared to the ridiculous assertation that there's "nothing we can do about it". The whole point of our system of government is that we the people decide how things are supposed to be.

Of the people does not mean the majority, it means the majority opinion while in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. Most people don't want to pay for it, that's the fucking point. People do nothing but bitch and complain about taxes, people on welfare, unemployment, yada yada yada but the majority doesn't hit the voting booth. I've voted in every local, state, and national election since the day I turned 18. The majority isn't deciding jack shit because the majority is too fucking lazy and apathetic to participate in running the government.

No socialism? Ridiculous. The very idea of taking money from one person and giving it to someone else is the embodiment of socialism. There is most certainly a way around the problem if not for the people who don't take the time to stand up for something and instead just satisfy themselves with the status quo.
2006-01-27 09:50:14
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

No socialism? Ridiculous. The very idea of taking money from one person and giving it to someone else is the embodiment of socialism. There is most certainly a way around the problem if not for the people who don't take the time to stand up for something and instead just satisfy themselves with the status quo.
My only comment here is that 'socialism' is a loaded word.  Given the history of this country, I think it's irresponsible to start throwing that word around by itself.  I think your description of what you're referring to when you say 'socialism' helps, Fellonious, and you are right in the technical sense.  But instead of using the term 'socialism', which carries with it such strong connotations beyond it's denotative meaning, you should instead just use a description of what you mean.  I think it's just a much more responsible way of arguing your point.

EDIT:  To elaborate, I don't think everyone here who's in favor of tax money going to helping other people in various ways (i.e. welfare, child rearing, even building roads in their towns) considers themselves a 'socialist'.  In fact, you're probably accusing the vast majority of the country of being 'socialist' when you stick to such a strict definition of the term 'socialism', including Ronald "Commie Killer" Reagan himself.

Last edited by Losati (2006-01-27 09:54:34)

2006-01-27 10:23:57
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746
Socialism is a very loaded word. There are varying degrees of it but none of which that I want to live under. I have no misconception about it being evil or even that "communism" is evil. But to me they are both antithetical to freedom and liberty because they make one a technical slave of the state. The state should always serve the people, not the other way around. If others want to live under those ideals, fine. But I sure as hell won't.

I'm not saying that those who favor wealth redistribution are all socialists but it is a core principle of socialism.
2006-01-27 11:51:25
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6747|Salt Lake City

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Socialism is a very loaded word. There are varying degrees of it but none of which that I want to live under. I have no misconception about it being evil or even that "communism" is evil. But to me they are both antithetical to freedom and liberty because they make one a technical slave of the state. The state should always serve the people, not the other way around. If others want to live under those ideals, fine. But I sure as hell won't.

I'm not saying that those who favor wealth redistribution are all socialists but it is a core principle of socialism.
But you also have to realize that much of what has given this country, and the businesses/individuals the ability to thrive has come from some level of wealth redistribution.  I don't think you understand the consequences of a purely capitalistic society.
2006-01-27 12:01:38
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746
There are certain levels of it that are required. I don't mind my tax money going to build roads because I use those roads. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the CDC because I've seen first hand how crucial that organization is. On the other hand I strongly oppose having to pay into social security when I will never see a penny of that money nor will I ever see a penny of welfare or government cheese. It's one thing to spend money on infrastructure, defense, health issues, etc and a completely different one for my money to support a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
2006-01-27 12:14:58
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6788

FeloniousMonk wrote:

a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
Must be a MILF with 8 kids.
2006-01-27 12:17:55
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

There are certain levels of it that are required. I don't mind my tax money going to build roads because I use those roads. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the CDC because I've seen first hand how crucial that organization is. On the other hand I strongly oppose having to pay into social security when I will never see a penny of that money nor will I ever see a penny of welfare or government cheese. It's one thing to spend money on infrastructure, defense, health issues, etc and a completely different one for my money to support a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
There's a lot of, what shall i call it, principle(?) there.  But I think it doesn't take into account a lot of real-life issues.  First, if she didn't get that money, her kids would very well not have sufficient food to eat.  Now she might go get a job, but it's doubtful she'd be able to make enough to feed said eight kids.  And go to school to get a better job? Not with eight kids at home.  And even if she gets the job, her kids could very well end up at home alone, leading to not only a child endangerment issue, but also a potential crime "threat".

So what do you prefer?  Odds are some of your tax dollars (or pennies?) are going to pay for some portion of that woman's life no matter what the solution.

Though, of course, I think your image of who these people are is, in general, wrong.  My girlfriend qualified for food stamps this year (though she didn't take them, as she has me) yet has a job.  And a friend of mine in Boston DID take food stamps last year, as working for AmeriCorps doesn't pay enough to live.  And though they both might have problems keeping their legs closed (much to my happiness in the first case), they don't sit at home all day watching soaps. 

Nor have 8 kids, thank god.
2006-01-27 12:19:32
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6747|Salt Lake City

FeloniousMonk wrote:

There are certain levels of it that are required. I don't mind my tax money going to build roads because I use those roads. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the CDC because I've seen first hand how crucial that organization is. On the other hand I strongly oppose having to pay into social security when I will never see a penny of that money nor will I ever see a penny of welfare or government cheese. It's one thing to spend money on infrastructure, defense, health issues, etc and a completely different one for my money to support a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
There is no dispute that welfare needs to be worked over, but the fact of the matter is that if we do away with it, the state is going to take the kids from the mother, and we are going to end up paying anyway.

SSI is only in trouble because we continue to allow the government to borrow money from SSI for other uses.  If you were to become disabled right now, you would qualify for some level of support from SSI.  If we stop allowing the government to use SSI money for anything but SSI, you will see it when you retire.  Also, the maximum amount of income which is subject to SSI taxes has not been changed in a very long time.  It's about time they raised it from the current $87K to something more along the lines of $110K.

And something else to keep in mind.  You say you don't mind your taxes being used for roads because you drive on them.  States get some federal money for such infrastructure projects.  That means that your tax dollars may go to build roads that you never even knew existed, let alone drive on them.  Why do they do it?  They realize that at a state/country/city only level there would be insufficient funds to build such infrastructure.  To spread some of this money around helps other states by making sure that inter/intra state commerce can grow.  Same thing for education.  States get federal tax dollars for schools.  This redistribution of wealth is done because it is considered in the best interest of everyone to have a citizenry that is as educated as possible.

Yes, welfare has problems, and I don't recall anyone here saying anything to contrary, but your idea of completely eliminating it is no more the answer than to continue to let it run as it is now.
2006-01-27 12:22:57
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6788

Losati wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

There are certain levels of it that are required. I don't mind my tax money going to build roads because I use those roads. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the CDC because I've seen first hand how crucial that organization is. On the other hand I strongly oppose having to pay into social security when I will never see a penny of that money nor will I ever see a penny of welfare or government cheese. It's one thing to spend money on infrastructure, defense, health issues, etc and a completely different one for my money to support a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
There's a lot of, what shall i call it, principle(?) there.  But I think it doesn't take into account a lot of real-life issues.  First, if she didn't get that money, her kids would very well not have sufficient food to eat.  Now she might go get a job, but it's doubtful she'd be able to make enough to feed said eight kids.  And go to school to get a better job? Not with eight kids at home.  And even if she gets the job, her kids could very well end up at home alone, leading to not only a child endangerment issue, but also a potential crime "threat".

So what do you prefer?  Odds are some of your tax dollars (or pennies?) are going to pay for some portion of that woman's life no matter what the solution.

Though, of course, I think your image of who these people are is, in general, wrong.  My girlfriend qualified for food stamps this year (though she didn't take them, as she has me) yet has a job.  And a friend of mine in Boston DID take food stamps last year, as working for AmeriCorps doesn't pay enough to live.  And though they both might have problems keeping their legs closed (much to my happiness in the first case), they don't sit at home all day watching soaps. 

Nor have 8 kids, thank god.
All welfare recipients should be sterilized. 

Save a kid from poverty... abort it.
2006-01-27 12:26:22
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6788

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

SSI is only in trouble because we continue to allow the government to borrow money from SSI for other uses.  If you were to become disabled right now, you would qualify for some level of support from SSI.  If we stop allowing the government to use SSI money for anything but SSI, you will see it when you retire.  Also, the maximum amount of income which is subject to SSI taxes has not been changed in a very long time.  It's about time they raised it from the current $87K to something more along the lines of $110K.
Under your proposal, would those making 110K per year receive SS when they hit the age eligible?
2006-01-27 12:27:55
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

All welfare recipients should be sterilized. 

Save a kid from poverty... abort it.
LOL, I hope that is a joke.

Also,I don't think Fellonious would want to pay for either of those.
2006-01-27 12:30:08
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Under your proposal, would those making 110K per year receive SS when they hit the age eligible?
I believe they already are.  As in: everyone gets SS checks when they're old enough, I *think*.

Fellnious's statement about not getting SS checks probably had more to do with speculation that the SS system will be abolished before he retires.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard