Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
You're at what, 36/50?
What happened to the other 14%?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The list in the OP is something I would have shared when I was a 19 year old registered Republican. Life was simple when it was so black and white.
Then I got more liberal politically as I grew more conservative in my personal life. IMO we could "save" so many more unborn children if we took all the money spend by special interest interest groups pushing for anti-abortion laws and all the money wasted by the states defending the same unconstitutional laws in court year after year and spend it on the resources that would help people make the choice to choose life.
Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean that I can't push for policies that encourage one choice over another.
Exalted!
Not percent 34 of your states have same sex marriage so far.
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
SilverMK2 wrote: Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving. Or perhaps they are filled with the Christian spirit of charity towards all their fellow men and will happily take these extra children into their own homes and raise them off the state dollar?
How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
What is your advice for a woman who's in a situation where she can't afford to provide food, clothing, and shelter for a baby?
And not just can't afford. What if a mother is disabled in one way or another, and does not have the physical and/or mental requirements to raise a child?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 16:35:43
SilverMK2 wrote: And this is why church and state should not mix
on the flip side your major lefty groups appear just fine with 3rd trimester abortion, which really is killing a baby that can survive.
I'm against that for almost every case, only if it is the mother's life at stake, and even then, you should make every effort yo make the fetus/baby survive.
I'll reiterate my point again, I dislike abortions, and want people to avoid them when not necessary. Late term abortions are disgusting, but sometimes necessary. I want abortions to be clean, safe, easily accessible, and rare.
We have a problem in our country which causes them to be so (relatively) common. Think about this, I'm 19, so my health classes were only 2 years ago, and in NY state, so it tends to be pretty liberal, and I don't remember hearing about contraception addressed in class at all.
And with all this talk about choice, I think we need something to lighten the mood a little.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
This is why its important to remain vigilant of religious intrusion on the law and social institutions...there is an impulse common in the religious sphere, especially amongst those that believe they are in receipt of a divine text or of divine instructions, to impose that religion on everyone else.
Yeah and I don't want it, I don't want church, Jesus, that guilt that comes with religion, sin, hopes of heaven, nothing.
And since I have this way of thinking I don't want religion in my life.
I have nothing against those who do, but a country not based on any one religion should not have a religion influence it's laws.
Some church goers shouldn't be able to tell me who I can and cannot marry (in terms of consenting adults).
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
Verviedi wrote: People below 18 should not be having sex anyway. Contraceptive advice in colleges, sure, but free contraceptives would be a waste of money that could feed people.
And criminals should not be committing crimes anyway, so I guess we don't need police and prisons. Maybe if we bury our heads in the sand it will just go away.
Also do you really believe any money saved would be used to feed people? If you want money to feed people then I suggest you turn your attention to the biggest leech on the system, which is cooperate tax evasion (sometimes know as accounting, and government sanctioned tax breaks) but it ends up costing trillions. Trillions that I suppose could be spent on feeding people, and all kinds of other infrastructure. Look at it this way: what cost more? Feeding someone for 60 years, OR a condom? Then think about how much money you just saved.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 16:47:13
I dislike abortions too, but I think for a different reason, you see I don't think the pontential of human life should be thrown away so easily (note: I don't believe a human is "human" until it is born), I don't think its murder because I don't think killing a mindless cow is murder, harsh I understand but that's that.
I do however dislike it as it throws away the pontential of the person that may have been, it just doesn't sit well with me, but that's not my choice, its the parent or person giving birth, I also don't think a woman should be allowed to have the child if both parents don't want the child, and if she proceeds she cannot claim anything from the father.
as to one of the other above points, contraceptives should always bee freely available, were animals and as much as the god folk don't like it, were not that far above our basic insticts still, people are going to want to have sex at whatever age they are, and we should try to educate them as much as possible with hard facts (i.e not religious) of what will happen, and provide contraception for WHEN they decide to ignore what they have been informed.
Formosa wrote: I dislike abortions too, but I think for a different reason, you see I don't think the pontential of human life should be thrown away so easily (note: I don't believe a human is "human" until it is born), I don't think its murder because I don't think killing a mindless cow is murder, harsh I understand but that's that.
I do however dislike it as it throws away the pontential of the person that may have been, it just doesn't sit well with me, but that's not my choice, its the parent or person giving birth, I also don't think a woman should be allowed to have the child if both parents don't want the child, and if she proceeds she cannot claim anything from the father.
as to one of the other above points, contraceptives should always bee freely available, were animals and as much as the god folk don't like it, were not that far above our basic insticts still, people are going to want to have sex at whatever age they are, and we should try to educate them as much as possible with hard facts (i.e not religious) of what will happen, and provide contraception for WHEN they decide to ignore what they have been informed.
Well put.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
sirlynchmob wrote: Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?
I don't. I'm not a fan of abortion as a rule, but recognise the need for it in some situations. My previous questions in this thread were in response to people making blanket statements of opinion as if they were indisputable fact, with no reasoning to back them up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
Because forcing someone to raise a child that they didn't want doesn't tend to result in the most nurturing environment for the child?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:45:46
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Certainly. Although I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but they make adoption insanely difficult over here.
It's one of those ridiculous bureaucracy things. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops and prove your fitness as a parent to adopt... but there's no problem at all with an unemployed drug-addict living in filth with her abusive ex-convict partner spitting out as many kids as they please.
Co'tor Shas wrote: True, but I still stand by that statement for most cases. And adoption is always an option (both adopting a child, and giving a child away for adoption).
Certainly. Although I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but they make adoption insanely difficult over here.
It's one of those ridiculous bureaucracy things. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops and prove your fitness as a parent to adopt... but there's no problem at all with an unemployed drug-addict living in filth with her abusive ex-convict partner spitting out as many kids as they please.
A couple of my friends have gone through the adoption route, and I don't know how it is here.... but it was rather insane for them (IMO) when they went through it.
The agency they went through required a certain amount of money in their savings account (and that amount varied, depending on the skin color of the child they were trying to adopt), as well as prove stable employment, with projected employment for, IIRC 5-10 years after the proposed adoption date.
On the one hand, I understand putting people through rigorous screening to ensure that adopting families are capable and willing.... but it just seemed a bit excessive, ESPECIALLY the differing amount of money depending on the race of the child.
Not actually always true. I know a girl who was convinced by her partner and his family to have an abortion, and for health reasons won't be able to get pregnant again. She's regretted that decision ever since, but at the time wasn't in a state to stand up for herself.
sirlynchmob wrote: Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?
I don't. I'm not a fan of abortion as a rule, but recognise the need for it in some situations. My previous questions in this thread were in response to people making blanket statements of opinion as if they were indisputable fact, with no reasoning to back them up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
Because forcing someone to raise a child that they didn't want doesn't tend to result in the most nurturing environment for the child?
I think I have found something we are mostly in sinc on. Well spoken.
Verviedi wrote: How about the person that birthed the child raises it?
And if they can't afford to? Should we just leave those children to starve to death, and congratulate ourselves on how we do a great job of encouraging personal responsibility? And what about the fact that a parent being forced to raise an unwanted child is a perfect recipe for neglect and/or abuse? This really makes a joke out of the term "pro-life", since what happens to the child after it is born doesn't seem to matter to you.
Contraceptives should never be free. People should be able to control themselves.
I see, so rather than spent a relatively small amount of money to provide contraceptives to people who have trouble affording them we should spend vast amounts of money supporting unwanted children? Or should we just say "budget crisis" and let the children starve to death to save money?
That's up to the employer.
I guess you don't really understand how poverty works? If all you can get is a minimum-wage job then your employer isn't going to give you more money to raise a child. And if you try to ask for more money they'll just fire you and replace you with one of the countless other poor people who would love to have even a low-end job.
Maybe also allow some meaningful sexual education in schools?
Is there not?
You have got to be kidding. Have you done any research on this subject before posting? I can't really think of any other explanation for how you could fail to know about abstinence-only "education" and how shamefully common it is.
People below 18 should not be having sex anyway.
And people should pay me a million dollars every time I have to read a ridiculous post on the internet. Facts about how the world works should determine our policies, not wishful thinking about how things "should" be.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
