|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 201 of 254:
| 
Mar 10 02:00 UTC 2006 |
People keep saying that if women are allowed to opt out via abortion
or adoption, guys should be able to opt out, too. That's crap.
Abortion and adoption are not true options for many women. Why not say
guys can opt out of child support if they agree to castration or
suicide? Sounds perfectly fair to me.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 202 of 254:
|
Mar 10 03:32 UTC 2006 |
Richard, given how many women are willing to "oppress" other women, don't you
find your claim "da Man" is keeping them down just a tad patronizing?
|
scholar
|
|
response 203 of 254:
|
Mar 10 03:56 UTC 2006 |
i like women because they're neat.
|
klg
|
|
response 204 of 254:
|
Mar 10 04:06 UTC 2006 |
(JEP: Stop calling RW an idiot and a liar. That's my job.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 205 of 254:
|
Mar 10 04:34 UTC 2006 |
I believe that abortion should be legal because before birth, the fetus
is dependant on a woman's body and I strongly believe that women should
have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies.
However, I think that both men and women should have equal rights after
the child is born. If a child is born and the woman wants to put it up
for adoption and doesnt want to be a parent but the father of the child
*doesnt* want to put it up for adoption and instead wants to raise it
himself, the woman should be required to pay him child support. As far
as I know, that is how things are currently. Just like how if after a
child is born, if the man wants to put it up for adoption and the woman
doesnt, he is liable for child support. Those guys with that lawsuit are
creating "unfairness" where it doesnt exist.
|
jep
|
|
response 206 of 254:
|
Mar 10 14:43 UTC 2006 |
re resp:184: I explained, in resp:100, that I am against the man's
lawsuit in part because it would increase the number of abortions.
Some pregnant women are pretty much going to be forced toward abortion
because they're not going to have financial support or paternal help in
raising their children. It is better to eliminate the option of
abortion, and also to eliminate the option of evading paternal
responsibility. Neither of those wrongs are going away completely, but
there is no need to increase them.
I am also, separately, against the guy's lawsuit because it would also
increase the number of single women raising children without the
financial support and physical involvement of the fathers. Due to a
hypothetical law based on this principle, some number of men would run
away from their responsibilities to their children, with the woman
bearing and raising the child herself anyway. There's way too much of
that already. We don't need anything that will make it happen even
more.
The lawsuit is for the dads and against their children. I don't see
any "up" side to that lawsuit at all.
|
twenex
|
|
response 207 of 254:
|
Mar 10 15:37 UTC 2006 |
I hav olways fund brus speling to b worng.
|
keesan
|
|
response 208 of 254:
|
Mar 10 16:30 UTC 2006 |
Nobody is forced into having an abortion because they don't have money to
raise a child. They can always give birth and put the child up for adoption.
They also have the option of accepting government aid if they are low income.
|
scholar
|
|
response 209 of 254:
|
Mar 10 16:38 UTC 2006 |
Right, because children raised on government aid and children raised in foster
homes are many times more likely to have good lives than children who grow
up in homes with biological parents who have enough to support them.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 210 of 254:
|
Mar 10 18:09 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 211 of 254:
|
Mar 10 19:08 UTC 2006 |
too many children being born places excessive monetary pressures on the
government, one way or another. The Morning After pill is something fiscal
conservatives should support, because we all benefit from unwanted births
going down, and from the birth rate in general going down.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 212 of 254:
|
Mar 10 19:12 UTC 2006 |
they are the future the service industry and make GREAT
cannon fodder.
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
|
klg
|
|
response 213 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:11 UTC 2006 |
RW: I am the government and it's fine with me.
Do you support gutting Social Security and Medicare so as to reduce the
number of non-productive senior citizens who place excessive monetary
pressures on the government?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 214 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:27 UTC 2006 |
How would that reduce their number? Suicides?
|
tod
|
|
response 215 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:52 UTC 2006 |
re #204
Finally some sense!
|
richard
|
|
response 216 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:52 UTC 2006 |
klg I *am* the government and so are you. WE are the government. Stop acting
if the government is some evil third-party enty. Our government is of, by
and for the people. It is not government run by the church, or run by
dictators, or run by autocratic regimes. It is government run BY the people.
It is the great experiment. Can people govern themselves. You should support
our government.
|
tod
|
|
response 217 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:56 UTC 2006 |
Its run by corporations.
|
keesan
|
|
response 218 of 254:
|
Mar 11 01:03 UTC 2006 |
I put monetary pressure on my bank by sometimes taking out the money I have
put into my account there.
|
klg
|
|
response 219 of 254:
|
Mar 11 02:33 UTC 2006 |
Who said RW could be the government?
|
richard
|
|
response 220 of 254:
|
Mar 11 20:50 UTC 2006 |
klg said:
"Do you support gutting Social Security and Medicare so as to reduce
the number of non-productive senior citizens who place excessive
monetary pressures on the government?"
Of course not. klg did you fail u.s. history/social studies when you
were in school? The PURPOSE of the government is to be a collective
force, derived from and by the community, to protect the community.
You don't protect the community by simply raising an army. You protect
a community by helping to take care of its tired, its poor, its sick
and yes...its elderly.
You would never say a soldier who has served his country in wars isn't
entitled to be taken care of later in his life with government benefits
would you? Well these elderly people, most of them, have served their
country in their own ways. They are the ones who kept this economy
going and this country functioning while you or your parents were
young. And you want to gut social security and medicare and toss them
aside as if they were worthless now that they've reached elderly age?
Just because you are so obsessed with taxes? If true thats really
heartless. When you get old, IF you get old, you'll want your social
security I bet and you won't complain a bit about medicare. But only
when you get old evidently.
|
keesan
|
|
response 221 of 254:
|
Mar 11 21:32 UTC 2006 |
The people who would start to collect social security next year have been
paying towards it all their working lives.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 222 of 254:
|
Mar 11 22:44 UTC 2006 |
Fair enough, but for most of their working lives they were paying in at
much lower rates than the working people of today.
|
richard
|
|
response 223 of 254:
|
Mar 11 22:47 UTC 2006 |
President Bush's highly influential economics guru is a guy whose name
most people don't know and they should. His name is Grover Norquist.
Norquist has as his stated goal the elimination of almost all federal
government social spending. His suggested plan to do this? Run the
federal defecit through the roof and bankrupt the government. He is
among those who think only the most dire of circumstances, i.e. the
government going bankrupt and having no choice but to make drastic
decisions, will get the government to consider gutting social
security, and he believes strongly enough that it should be gutted and
forced into privitazion, that he thinks creating these most dire of
circumstances is necessary and worth doing.
A guy like Norquist thinks the Iraq war is a win/win situation,
because it pushes their foreign policy objectives AND has the
government spending hundreds of billions of dollars and slowly
draining the government's coffers.
I'm sure klg knows who Grover Norquist is, in fact I bet klg worships
the ground this guy walks on.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 224 of 254:
|
Mar 12 04:35 UTC 2006 |
Richard, let me explain how you harm the liberal cause. Norquist has in fact
said he wants to shrink government to the point you could "drown it in the
bathtub." He is NOT, however, Bush's "economic guru." In fact, I'm not aware
that he has ever held a formal position in the Bush administration. He is,
rather, a member of a conservative lobbying group/think tank that has had a
great deal of sway within the GOP, in congress as well as the executive
branch. "Economic guru" and "head of a think tank" are NOT equivalent
terms. Get it?
When you misstate important facts, as you just did, you open the door to
being attacked on a single point and shown to be a liar, thus allowing
your political opponents (kludgieboy for instance) to paint you as one
whose otherwise truthful words cannot be trusted. You are guilty of
over-reaching again and again and again. Get a clue or shut up. You are
harming your cause.
|
klg
|
|
response 225 of 254:
|
Mar 12 17:24 UTC 2006 |
So, RW thinks we should go bankrupt servicing the needs of the old, but
not the pre-old?
|