Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 27







Post#651 at 11-08-2009 02:18 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
11-08-2009, 02:18 AM #651
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
It has always seemed to me that the pro-choice view should prevail, since it assumes that women are capable enough to make their own decisions about whether or not to have children.
Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#652 at 11-08-2009 02:54 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-08-2009, 02:54 AM #652
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)
If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women. If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.

I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#653 at 11-08-2009 03:05 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
11-08-2009, 03:05 AM #653
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Let's cut the all the bull from this discussion shall we?

To Odin:

Yes, you were being bigoted. Everyone is bigoted about something and neither you nor I are exceptions. People who assume that their positions are the right positions and are intolerant to dissonant opinions are... well you get my drift.

What do you want, a world where your ideals rule and only your ideals, or do you want true tolerance and diversity? If you want true tolerance and diversity one must learn to accept intolerance and non-diversity as a natural and valid viewpoint. Newton put this best: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (I know I'm stretching it's meaning, but cut some slack here)

For some reason I think a Silent or some other Artist generation would understand this best. While intolerance and bigotry can/will be cruel--it's not something to be gas chambered, burnt to the stake, or lynched out of existence--for that just continues intolerance, bigotry, and everything else you declare that you hate, in a different manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swiKTHeDNH8

Instead, just let it die and fade away on its own accord.

To Rani:

You'd get your point across a lot better, and get a lot less slack back if you weren't as bitingly hostile. Although I can understand why you would be.

To Child of Socrates:

Agreed on many points. However do people why should people who disagree with the practice have to financially support it--and thus in their minds promote it? -- Hmm reminds me of a certain argument we had back when T.Jeff. was president. Which leads to the whole do we want a rope of sand or a rod of iron debate.

To Justin'77:

Thank you. And as for why we have to make things non-people-- in order to morally justify genetic testing on fetuses (oh how bright and cheery the future looks), as that's where most of the genetic experimentation is going to be conducted, we have to first label them as non-human.

Oh and all those who think that Catholics are intolerant (fill in the blank). I put before your Judgment: Flannery O'Connor.

Everything that Rises Must Converge:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Sd...age&q=&f=false

My opinion on the issue: Men shouldn't debate this issue as it has nothing to do with us (unless the male wants to claim ownership of the semen he injects, but that's just going into semantics ). Let the women battle it out and figure it out for themselves. And since I am a male, that's my opinion on the matter.

~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 11-08-2009 at 03:14 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#654 at 11-08-2009 03:09 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
11-08-2009, 03:09 AM #654
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Watching this debate unfold makes me wish the Homelanders would grow up right now. We need them to keep both Handmaidenites and Zygonites at bay. I don't think I can take another 15 - 18 years of this bull.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#655 at 11-08-2009 03:20 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-08-2009, 03:20 AM #655
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Yes and No...

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women. If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.

I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.
Alas, different people have different dominant values. Someone whose values are scientific might ask at what point a developing human being becomes sentient or self aware. Someone whose values are political or legal might ask at what point a developing human becomes a citizen. Someone whose values are religious might ask at what point a developing human acquires a soul.

These are three different questions. They are values driven. One cannot lightly persuade someone committed to one approach to abandon one such approach in favor of another. My own gut feeling suggests that the government should not be enforcing religious dogma, but I would quite expect others to have entirely different gut feelings. They would be no more likely to budge than I.

Thus, I can sympathize with your position, Odin, while anticipating that others will find it repugnant. Many will get quite stubborn about killing babies. I would not expect a calm rational discussion on such a subject.







Post#656 at 11-08-2009 07:52 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
11-08-2009, 07:52 AM #656
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

You don't recognize an attempt - arguably, a flimsy one - at coalition building?

What did Prohibitionists and women's suffragists have in common? Yet they forged an alliance that culminated in both sides getting what they wanted (even though for the former it only proved temporary).

If Stupak's bill nudges us toward a "Christian Democratic" paradigm - in the Latin-American sense, not the Italo-German sense - something real good could come out of this.

Another potential "odd couple" would pair the environmentalists with those who desire to seriously restrict - and even, to some extent, reverse - (illegal) immigration.

The only limit to this is in the imagination of the factions contemplating joining forces.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#657 at 11-08-2009 09:59 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-08-2009, 09:59 AM #657
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)
Justin, I think you (and the Rani) are using the word "bigotry" rather loosely in this context.

I am able to see the other perspective on this. I simply disagree with it on moral grounds. And I do think my moral perspective on this is superior, or else I wouldn't have argued it so strenuously over the years.







Post#658 at 11-08-2009 10:03 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-08-2009, 10:03 AM #658
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
To Child of Socrates:

Agreed on many points. However do people why should people who disagree with the practice have to financially support it--and thus in their minds promote it? -- Hmm reminds me of a certain argument we had back when T.Jeff. was president. Which leads to the whole do we want a rope of sand or a rod of iron debate.
Well, I could take this argument and apply it to practices with which I disagree: capital punishment, the war on drugs, agricultural subsidies, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

I would have much less of a problem with those who oppose abortion if so many of them weren't also opposed to birth control.







Post#659 at 11-08-2009 01:01 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-08-2009, 01:01 PM #659
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. .
Not necessarily. They'd end up trying to jail a substantial fraction of the American female population. This is clearly not workable, or effective, as clearly demonstrated by the so-called War On Drugs.

They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women.
Agree with the former, but the latter? Keep in mind that men benefit from abortion too, specifically that they aren't tied by child support payments and parental duties to a woman they don't want to be with.

Moral arguments for or against aside, let's call abortion what it is: a simple escape clause, allowing both guys and gals to have as much sex as they want, with whomever they want it, whenever the care to have it... while escaping the natural consequences of their actions. That's it.

If we want to get rid of abortions, we need both better birth control, and for young people to make better intimate decisions for themselves... rather than marching to the still-echoing Boomer drum. Fortunately the Millennials seem to be doing exactly that.


If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.
And you know this... how? How can birth control be construed as anything other than preventive medicine? Even most conservatives don't believe otherwise.


I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.
What about a second-trimester fetus who has a measurable heartbeat and brain activity?

The questions raised above concerning when a human being becomes sentient and acquires a soul are central to the debate here. Obviously a zygote, lacking the "hardware" to run the "software" of a thinking and feeling soul, isn't sentient yet. After three months, however, I'd be very surprised if a baby isn't to some degree self-aware, enough at least to qualify as fully human, and worthy of being protected.

There... that's my $0.02. If it's enough to make me a misogynist (sp?) who's only interested in "controlling women", so be it. At least I don't pretend that women aren't just as interested in controlling and manipulating me, if they thought they could get away with it, Odin. Power-tripping is all-too-human for both genders.
Last edited by Roadbldr '59; 11-08-2009 at 01:12 PM.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#660 at 11-08-2009 01:16 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-08-2009, 01:16 PM #660
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
True, but what I'm getting at is more like whether or not abortions constitute "necessary" health care which society has a moral obligation to provide. Even people who don't consider abortion to be murder don't think that they are a requirement for "health," other than the rape/health-of-mother exclusions.


So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?

"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#661 at 11-08-2009 01:21 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-08-2009, 01:21 PM #661
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Mike Alexander laid out the most rational discernment I have seen on the topic.

There is a point in the pregnancy in which the state could 'take' the fetus and have it become a viable lifeform outside of the mother. The state would then be able to "adovacate" for the child independent of the mother.

Before that point, the fetus is only viable to the extent the mother makes it so; only she can independently "advocate" for the life.

To make the mother advocate against her will is slavery.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#662 at 11-08-2009 01:30 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-08-2009, 01:30 PM #662
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
Let's cut the all the bull from this discussion shall we?

To Odin:

Yes, you were being bigoted. Everyone is bigoted about something and neither you nor I are exceptions. People who assume that their positions are the right positions and are intolerant to dissonant opinions are... well you get my drift.

What do you want, a world where your ideals rule and only your ideals, or do you want true tolerance and diversity? If you want true tolerance and diversity one must learn to accept intolerance and non-diversity as a natural and valid viewpoint. Newton put this best: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (I know I'm stretching it's meaning, but cut some slack here)

For some reason I think a Silent or some other Artist generation would understand this best. While intolerance and bigotry can/will be cruel--it's not something to be gas chambered, burnt to the stake, or lynched out of existence--for that just continues intolerance, bigotry, and everything else you declare that you hate, in a different manner.
I have a problem with letting the intolerant running roughshod over women, minorities, the disabled, the non-religious, and the poor, throwing them under the bus for political victory.

A Karl Popper Quote I like:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#663 at 11-08-2009 01:30 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-08-2009, 01:30 PM #663
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?


!!!!!:shudder:!!!!!
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#664 at 11-08-2009 01:32 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-08-2009, 01:32 PM #664
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
You don't recognize an attempt - arguably, a flimsy one - at coalition building?

What did Prohibitionists and women's suffragists have in common? Yet they forged an alliance that culminated in both sides getting what they wanted (even though for the former it only proved temporary).

If Stupak's bill nudges us toward a "Christian Democratic" paradigm - in the Latin-American sense, not the Italo-German sense - something real good could come out of this.

Another potential "odd couple" would pair the environmentalists with those who desire to seriously restrict - and even, to some extent, reverse - (illegal) immigration.

The only limit to this is in the imagination of the factions contemplating joining forces.
Great, lets throw women and gay people under the bus! That's the ticket! Sorry, I's rather join with the Libertarians.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#665 at 11-08-2009 01:34 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
11-08-2009, 01:34 PM #665
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
True, but what I'm getting at is more like whether or not abortions constitute "necessary" health care which society has a moral obligation to provide. Even people who don't consider abortion to be murder don't think that they are a requirement for "health," other than the rape/health-of-mother exclusions.
Well, the response to that point seems blindingly obvious. If you want to bring another party into your doings (which is exactly what happens when the party 'society' is put into the private dealings between patient and doctor), you don't get to have exclusive choice anymore.

Pro-choicers defeat their only coherent argument -- that only the woman has any right at all to make such a choice -- when they bring society to the table as a financier. If society is participating in it, then the choice gets to be shared with society. Which means the choice is not exclusively the domain of the woman anymore.

---

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler
Many will get quite stubborn about killing babies. I would not expect a calm rational discussion on such a subject.
How in the world could 'killing babies' ever be a topic on which it is appropriate to have a calm, rational discussion? It's a thing only mass-murderers and politicians (or do I repeat myself) do -- it has no place among the rational.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#666 at 11-08-2009 01:35 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
11-08-2009, 01:35 PM #666
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Great, lets throw women and gay people under the bus! That's the ticket! Sorry, I's rather join with the Libertarians.

I have never said, abortion should be illegal. Don't ask me to pay for it in health Insurance coverage.







Post#667 at 11-08-2009 01:36 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
11-08-2009, 01:36 PM #667
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?
Probably they would look it that the same way they would look at repairing someone's slit wrists. Afaik, insurance companies don't refuse payment on lifesaving measures to combat injuries someone did to themselves.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#668 at 11-08-2009 01:42 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-08-2009, 01:42 PM #668
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59 View Post
And you know this... how? How can birth control be construed as anything other than preventive medicine? Even most conservatives don't believe otherwise.
The RCC is adimantly against birth control, as are many fundamentalist sects.



What about a second-trimester fetus who has a measurable heartbeat and brain activity?
Nearly all abortions occur before then, the rest are mainly because the health of the mother is threatened or because the fetus is deformed and non-viable.

The questions raised above concerning when a human being becomes sentient and acquires a soul are central to the debate here. Obviously a zygote, lacking the "hardware" to run the "software" of a thinking and feeling soul, isn't sentient yet. After three months, however, I'd be very surprised if a baby isn't to some degree self-aware, enough at least to qualify as fully human, and worthy of being protected.
At that stage the brain is no more developed than in other mammals.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#669 at 11-08-2009 01:46 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-08-2009, 01:46 PM #669
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
At that stage the brain is no more developed than in other mammals.
I like to think that people are more important than say... pigs .
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#670 at 11-08-2009 01:48 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-08-2009, 01:48 PM #670
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
I have never said, abortion should be illegal. Don't ask me to pay for it in health Insurance coverage.
Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#671 at 11-08-2009 01:50 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-08-2009, 01:50 PM #671
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Hm? Being pregnant is not a disease.
No, it's a preventable condition which, depending on one's own personal circumstances, may not be optimal.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#672 at 11-08-2009 01:53 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-08-2009, 01:53 PM #672
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".
No, it's all about getting people to take responsibility for their actions. Not just women, men too.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#673 at 11-08-2009 01:55 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
11-08-2009, 01:55 PM #673
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".
When did I say 'Slut'? Never. They are abortion clinics for this, remember and also they are some families who would love to adopt an unwanted child.







Post#674 at 11-08-2009 02:23 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
11-08-2009, 02:23 PM #674
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.
How truly awesome, Odin.

Not only do you insist he be a part of the medical question, but you insist that he be a part of the child's life itself.

Exactly which decisions in a woman's life do you think that wrtg shouldn't have a hand in? And why would you even put such a person -- with whom you so strongly disagree -- in charge of a woman's decisions, anyway? Doesn't the woman have a right to choose for herself?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#675 at 11-08-2009 02:27 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
11-08-2009, 02:27 PM #675
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

There are certain expenses involved in being female and sexually active. These include birth control, all the HUGE expenses involved in bearing and raising children (which, btw, some people here arguing that these should be entirely an individual responsibility have never themselves faced), and (perhaps) abortion. Of those, obviously the expenses of bearing and raising children are far and away the greatest. Moreover, the bearing and raising of children is obviously a service for the public good (overall, with certain individual exceptions that can't be predicted ahead of time).

With any expense of life, we can collectivize it or we can make it an individual responsibility. The consequence of doing the latter is that we make it more difficult, with the result that some people will be unable to do it. (Note: it is NOT a response to this to say that failure to do so is the fault of the individual. That's only partially true, and in any case irrelevant. Whoever's fault it is, the fact remains that the harder you make something, the fewer people will succeed in doing it.)

The consequence of doing the former is that we cut into the spending and/or investing money of the more wealthy people, in one way or another (either taxes or insurance premiums).

In each case, we must decide which consequences outweigh the other. My position is that, since the consequence of socializing an expense is relatively trivial, we should do so unless the consequence of privatizing it is equally trivial, which is the case with anything people don't need.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
-----------------------------------------