• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

EPIC FAILURE - Mitt can't distance himself from Ryan/Akin war on women.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Forcing me to support single mothers.

EDIT: I will stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. When they stop expecting me to pay for it.
Uh, they're called taxes. Taxes pay for a multitude of different things. As a citizen of any country, you'll pay them. What the government decides to spend the money is a matter of just that, what they decide. Regardless of what they spend the money on, you are still required to pay taxes.

Also, I fail to see how that affects your personal beliefs. Sure, you disagree with the concept of single mothers, but that fact that your tax dollars help to support them is largely different than a government official declaring that you have no control over what you can do with your body.

That bolded is a ridiculous statement. The only reason to prefer all pregnancies be carried to term is if your think abortion is murder; either abortion is murder or it is no different than killing a tapeworm. So you are saying it is not your right to deny someone else the opportunity to commit murder.
No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that if I had to choose on an accidental pregnancy, my preference would be towards life. Further, once the embryo has formed into something that resembles a living being (arms, legs, nose, head, etc), I could see that at some point being the beginning of the definition of a living being. But, aside from that, I am quite sure that a man cannot be prosecuted for the seed he spills on the bed sheets. Nor can a woman be prosecuted for the period she has every month.

So how is it, that when those two meet, someone can define that as life? And because they believe it to be so, everyone else must also? That's the part I disagree with.

My 'ridiculous' statement is based on my religious upbringing. I'd like to believe that the fetus has a purpose. But a fertilized egg is not a fetus.

But the reality is, there are tens of thousands of women who experience miscarriages. Is there an obituary in the paper every time this happens? A couple may memorialize their lost pregnancy in some way, but the lost pregnancy is not recognized by the society as a life. An acquaintance of mine had this happen within the past year. While it was a sad moment for them, it was not recognized as a death.

I don't have the answers for everything on this topic, I just know that the definition of life, to me, is something that can live on its own. A fertilized egg is not that. A rape victim should have the opportunity to take a morning after pill to ensure that she does not have to live 9 months with a reminder of what had happened growing inside of her.

The slippery slope they seem to be looking for would essentially make any form of abortion illegal. That, to me, is a violation of a person's rights.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Well, you ARE crazy...but you are also correct. As of right now, the legal point at which a human becomes a person is birth...except if a pregnant woman is attacked and the unborn human is killed, then it suddenly becomes a person the moment before it dies so the attacker can be charged with murder.

AFAIK, part of the republican platform is to change this legal definition to be some point before birth, though I do not know when that point is.

EDIT: If personhood is moved back to, say week 12 after conception, then the Fifth Amendment would prevent almost all abortions from that point forward since no person is allowed to be deprived of life without due process. Only if the life of the mother is at stake would a judge be consulted to give the legal power to end the life of the unborn person (since the judge would have to rule on whose right to life wins).
And that is something I can agree with.

The only disagreement I have is consulting a judge on who has the right to live. That choice, is a choice for the mother who will be consulting with their doctor. A third party should have no choice in the matter, regardless of their legal standing.

Further, as someone who does not dive into this crap on a regular basis, I feel that the Republican party should make it explicitly clear what they are looking for. 12 weeks after fertilization? Or any time?

It seems their party is against any form of abortion, be it morning after pill or otherwise. If they are to turn this topic around, they need to explain exactly what it is that they are looking for. IE - Abortion of any form will be banned immediately upon the end of the first 84 days of the pregnancy. If the date of conception is not clear, the latest date as estimated by their primary physician will be used.

As it is, they seem to be at war with abortion in general. Of course women's rights activist will be up in arms about this.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Also, I fail to see how that affects your personal beliefs. Sure, you disagree with the concept of single mothers, but that fact that your tax dollars help to support them is largely different than a government official declaring that you have no control over what you can do with your body.
You are taking my money and giving it to bailout single mothers. How is that NOT affecting my beliefs.

And there is a large difference. If a woman does not want to be pregnant she can easily avoid it by practicing abstinence. Unless I want to stop eating I have to keep having my money given to bailout single mothers.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
You are taking my money and giving it to bailout single mothers. How is that NOT affecting my beliefs.

And there is a large difference. If a woman does not want to be pregnant she can easily avoid it by practicing abstinence. Unless I want to stop eating I have to keep having my money given to bailout single mothers.
You can be against every single thing that the government gives money to. That is your right. But the reality is, you are giving them taxes for the things that you benefit from as a citizen. IE - Your taxes make it possible for your government to keep providing you with the freedoms they do.

That has no direct affect on your beliefs. If you prefer, just think of it as your money paying for the legal system instead.

As for abstinence, I cannot recall of a single rape victim who was given a choice. As it is not ethical to question the "legitimacy" of a rape, one cannot deny someone yet another right because they believe their way is the right way.

Also, abstinence is yet another belief. I would say that it is the preferred method for avoiding pregnancy, but as their are contraceptive methods out there, it is not the only method. Again, a right vs. a belief.

As a person, you have the right to make a choice so long as it doesn't harm other persons, or affect their rights. Contraception, abortion, among others, don't harm a person as defined in the constitution.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
You can be against every single thing that the government gives money to. That is your right. But the reality is, you are giving them taxes for the things that you benefit from as a citizen. IE - Your taxes make it possible for your government to keep providing you with the freedoms they do.
Government does provide freedoms.

And I fail to see how bailing out single mothers is benefiting me.

As a person, you have the right to make a choice so long as it doesn't harm other persons, or affect their rights. Contraception, abortion, among others, don't harm a person as defined in the constitution.
Becoming a single mother and needing government bailouts does harm other people. Not to mention the direct impact of single mothers on children.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Government does provide freedoms.

And I fail to see how bailing out single mothers is benefiting me.



Becoming a single mother and needing government bailouts does harm other people. Not to mention the direct impact of single mothers on children.
No one said that it does benefit you. That's the thing here, the government has to concern themselves with the big picture. Each element doesn't always benefit you.

As for harming people, you'll have a tough time proving that. It does more benefit for the child and mother. In some cases, a mother chooses to bring a pregnancy to full term. At some point, she may make a decision to leave an abusive partner and raise the child alone, which I would argue is extremely beneficial for the child. It is far better than the possible outcome of an abused child abusing others later in life.

Sorry, but if you choose to cherry pick, and piss and moan about your money supporting single mothers, I'll just let you be the bitter person you are. The fact is, your taxes support many things. You won't always be for them.

Unless taxes are used to build a monastery, church, or synagogue, I don't think you have a solid point. There is a difference between beliefs and causes. Supporting single mothers is a cause. You may disagree with it, but if the government chooses to support single mothers to try and ensure that each child is given a better chance at life, so be it. The government is not adding 5% on your taxes to support that cause, and while a certain percent of your taxes certainly support that cause, it does not affect your beliefs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY