Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

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

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

How would Congress do this? The only way would be by constitutional amendment, and that already requires a veto-proof supermajority to do so. How would the President even factor in?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

You're right, but who is going to enforce this law and who is going to pay for it to be enforced to the point where these payments are made to the mothers when they are supposed to be paid? Checks and balances to make sure that such things get enforced properly are not cheap. Someone needs to pay for it and someone needs to make sure that the enforcement actually happens even after it is paid for.

In the end, providing incentives to the fathers to take responsibility on their own could be cheaper than strictly boosting the enforcement. Both need to happen, but the amount that both need to happen and the total cost is what really counts.

No, both don't "need" to happen. More men need to be responsible but it is not the responsibility of the Feds to pay them to be responsible.

Be honest with me. Do you really believe that people will ever reach such a purified state of mind and responsibility? It hasn't happened yet. How and why would it happen in the near future? By the way, while you are waiting for this to just magically happen you got a shit load of kids and single mothers who are suffering because they can barely make ends meet after their dead beat fathers decided to do a 180 on them once they realized they didn't actually want to be a dad.

Oh wait. I forgot. You don't give a shit about that because it's not your problem and all you care about is your own tax money and ensuring that it is only spent on things which help you. Not that you have given any time to think about how much these kids growing up in a family without a father or money will actually impact your life in the future once they grow up and enter the real world.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.


Dude, what are you smoking? People express this all of the time! The problem is that the state does nothing about it because the problem has become too big and too expensive for them to handle properly. They need help and the only thing out there to help them is the Fed. It's not like this is a new problem that no one understands anything about.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

How would Congress do this? The only way would be by constitutional amendment, and that already requires a veto-proof supermajority to do so. How would the President even factor in?

Okay, but the congress can pass other pro-choice and/or pro-life legislation.

Whoever is more likely to veto pro-choice legislation gets my vote.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

How would Congress do this? The only way would be by constitutional amendment, and that already requires a veto-proof supermajority to do so. How would the President even factor in?

Okay, but the congress can pass other pro-choice and/or pro-life legislation.

Whoever is more likely to veto pro-choice legislation gets my vote.

While I am completely ok with your position on this matter despite how I may disagree with you, you really ought to consider that there are so many additional issues that deserve a lot of weight and consideration when it comes to your vote beyond just abortion. Pro-choice/Pro-life decisions are not the backbone which keeps this country afloat. For example, people suffering financially due to the economy means less money to support a child. Those who get knocked up and don't have enough money to deal with the situation will be more prone to getting an abortion.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

How would Congress do this? The only way would be by constitutional amendment, and that already requires a veto-proof supermajority to do so. How would the President even factor in?

Okay, but the congress can pass other pro-choice and/or pro-life legislation.

Whoever is more likely to veto pro-choice legislation gets my vote.

While I am completely ok with your position on this matter despite how I may disagree with you, you really ought to consider that there are so many additional issues that deserve a lot of weight and consideration when it comes to your vote beyond just abortion. Pro-choice/Pro-life decisions are not the backbone which keeps this country afloat. For example, people suffering financially due to the economy means less money to support a child. Those who get knocked up and don't have enough money to deal with the situation will be more prone to getting an abortion.

I see it as a question of priority.

I believe abortion for convenience to be murder. That being the case, we're committing murder, sanctioned by the government, in huge quantities each year. And not just any murder; this is parents killing their children.

If a politician is point-blank telling me that he or she is okay with something so horrifying, I don't care what else they stand for.

If you (the candidate) don't have a problem with raping women, I don't really care to hear about your stance on reducing gas prices. If you don't have a problem with murder, I could care less about how you think we should pull out of Iraq because it's killing our soldiers. What right have you, the candidate who accepts murdering children, to give two cents about soldiers killed in the line of duty?

That's my reasoning. Some issues are more important than others. If a candidate doesn't believe abortion is abhorrent, how can I expect him or her to believe anything to be abhorrent? To me, no issue, here or abroad, is more important than abortion.

That's why, even though I disagreed with his Iraq stance, I would've voted for Ron Paul had he won the nomination.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

You're right, but who is going to enforce this law and who is going to pay for it to be enforced to the point where these payments are made to the mothers when they are supposed to be paid? Checks and balances to make sure that such things get enforced properly are not cheap. Someone needs to pay for it and someone needs to make sure that the enforcement actually happens even after it is paid for.

In the end, providing incentives to the fathers to take responsibility on their own could be cheaper than strictly boosting the enforcement. Both need to happen, but the amount that both need to happen and the total cost is what really counts.

No, both don't "need" to happen. More men need to be responsible but it is not the responsibility of the Feds to pay them to be responsible.

Be honest with me. Do you really believe that people will ever reach such a purified state of mind and responsibility? It hasn't happened yet. How and why would it happen in the near future? By the way, while you are waiting for this to just magically happen you got a shit load of kids and single mothers who are suffering because they can barely make ends meet after their dead beat fathers decided to do a 180 on them once they realized they didn't actually want to be a dad.

Oh wait. I forgot. You don't give a shit about that because it's not your problem and all you care about is your own tax money and ensuring that it is only spent on things which help you. Not that you have given any time to think about how much these kids growing up in a family without a father or money will actually impact your life in the future once they grow up and enter the real world.

Wrong. Nowhere did I suggest it could magically happen. I am just saying THIS idea that we need to PAY people to do it is stupid. It's just as stupid as PAYING kids to stay in school(grades etc). But regardless, this is not a FEDERAL issue unless you want more socialism. I don't think socialism is the answer.

Where are the Libertarians and Conservatives on this? It's an easy argument despite the emotional rhetoric.

Meh, I didn't expect much less on this forum...
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434

While I am completely ok with your position on this matter despite how I may disagree with you, you really ought to consider that there are so many additional issues that deserve a lot of weight and consideration when it comes to your vote beyond just abortion. Pro-choice/Pro-life decisions are not the backbone which keeps this country afloat. For example, people suffering financially due to the economy means less money to support a child. Those who get knocked up and don't have enough money to deal with the situation will be more prone to getting an abortion.

I see it as a question of priority.

I believe abortion for convenience to be murder. That being the case, we're committing murder, sanctioned by the government, in huge quantities each year. And not just any murder; this is parents killing their children.

If a politician is point-blank telling me that he or she is okay with this, I don't care what else they stand for.

If you don't have a problem with raping women, I don't really care to hear about your stance on reducing gas prices. If you don't have a problem with murder, I could care less about how you think we should pull out of Iraq because it's killing our soldiers. What right have you, the candidate who accepts murdering children, to give two cents about soldiers killed in the line of duty?

That's my reasoning. Some issues are more important than others.

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you are not realizing how much of an impact these other issues can have on reducing the amount of abortion that occurs throughout the states even though that impact is indirect. When America's economy is flourishing more and people generally have more money and stable jobs then they will be more prone to keeping the children even if they are not planned. Outlawing abortion completely is not going to happen anytime soon if ever and nor will it become more difficult to get an abortion. It's already very easy to find out if your are pregnant early and most people can afford abortions. Therefore, the choice lies in the hands of the people despite the president's feelings about the matter. If you want the people to make a pro life decision then you need to vote for the candidate who will make it easier for them to do so. A very good start would be voting for the candidate who you believe will do a better job at helping our economy.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Maybe you could provide an alternative? I'm assuming you agree that the state has an interest in fathers following court decisions and in providing for the care of their children. If you think Obama's solution is bad, and that the status quo is bad, how would you change things to accomplish this goal?

I don't have to as this is about Obama's plan. His sucks as it's nothing more than socialism and allowing people to look to the gov't in order to take "responsibility". Start a thread on the subject of child support and it's problems and I'll participate, but right here and now this is about Obama and his misguided proposal.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Gee... I'd love for you to explain how I was making an ASSumption when your sole argument up til now was for enforcement of the existing law.
It's pretty much impossible for you to admit to being wrong, isn't it? Maybe if you could learn to think a little outside the box and not kneejerk so much...

It's no different than your ASSumption that I'm for McCain since I post against Obama. Just because I'm against his asinine proposal does NOT mean I am for doing nothing.

Meh, it seems you've changed and lost touch with reality.... it's too bad...
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

If you nail a chick, and she gets pregnant, it's your responsibility. If you don't want that, don't have sex. Not too complicated.

That's what the pro-life side says about abortion, but there seems to be some difference of opinion there. Why do women have a choice (have sex all you want, just get an abortion) but men don't (abstain for sex or you're at the mercy of a woman).

It's an awful double standard.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Wrong. Nowhere did I suggest it could magically happen. I am just saying THIS idea that we need to PAY people to do it is stupid. It's just as stupid as PAYING kids to stay in school(grades etc). But regardless, this is not a FEDERAL issue unless you want more socialism. I don't think socialism is the answer.

Where are the Libertarians and Conservatives on this? It's an easy argument despite the emotional rhetoric.

Meh, I didn't expect much less on this forum...

You are against spending money on incentives for fathers to pay child support (which is not going to be in the form of hard cash according to Obama btw) yet what you are failing to understand is that the amount of money that is necessary to properly rely on enforcement alone to fix the problem will be so much more than the money necessary to fix the problem through both a mixture of enforcement and incentives.

Don't you get it? We both want the same thing here. We want to fix the problem in the most efficient way possible spending the least amount of tax dollars possible. Simply leaving it up to these fathers to take responsibility is exactly what we are doing right now and while it is the cheapest approach it is not working at all.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434

While I am completely ok with your position on this matter despite how I may disagree with you, you really ought to consider that there are so many additional issues that deserve a lot of weight and consideration when it comes to your vote beyond just abortion. Pro-choice/Pro-life decisions are not the backbone which keeps this country afloat. For example, people suffering financially due to the economy means less money to support a child. Those who get knocked up and don't have enough money to deal with the situation will be more prone to getting an abortion.

I see it as a question of priority.

I believe abortion for convenience to be murder. That being the case, we're committing murder, sanctioned by the government, in huge quantities each year. And not just any murder; this is parents killing their children.

If a politician is point-blank telling me that he or she is okay with this, I don't care what else they stand for.

If you don't have a problem with raping women, I don't really care to hear about your stance on reducing gas prices. If you don't have a problem with murder, I could care less about how you think we should pull out of Iraq because it's killing our soldiers. What right have you, the candidate who accepts murdering children, to give two cents about soldiers killed in the line of duty?

That's my reasoning. Some issues are more important than others.

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you are not realizing how much of an impact these other issues can have on reducing the amount of abortion that occurs throughout the states even though that impact is indirect. When America's economy is flourishing more and people generally have more money and stable jobs then they will be more prone to keeping the children even if they are not planned. Outlawing abortion completely is not going to happen anytime soon if ever and nor will it become more difficult to get an abortion. It's already very easy to find out if your are pregnant early and most people can afford abortions. Therefore, the choice lies in the hands of the people despite the president's feelings about the matter. If you want the people to make a pro life decision then you need to vote for the candidate who will make it easier for them to do so. A very good start would be voting for the candidate who you believe will do a better job at helping our economy.

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

We try to convince people not to murder, and we try and keep poverty low to facilitate this. But we make clear, in no uncertain terms, that you will be prosecuted if you give in to the impulse to murder.

And anyway, why should we work to discourage abortion if we don't really believe it's wrong?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?


Yet... he thinks people who earn more money should be taxed less than others..
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Possibly so.

For the record, I'm not in favor of an anti-Roe v. Wade. That is, I'm not in favor a nation-wide ban, imposed by 9 justices. I'm in favor of returning the issue to state legislatures.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Gee... I'd love for you to explain how I was making an ASSumption when your sole argument up til now was for enforcement of the existing law.
It's pretty much impossible for you to admit to being wrong, isn't it? Maybe if you could learn to think a little outside the box and not kneejerk so much...

It's no different than your ASSumption that I'm for McCain since I post against Obama. Just because I'm against his asinine proposal does NOT mean I am for doing nothing.

Meh, it seems you've changed and lost touch with reality.... it's too bad...

Nice DUH-version. Let me know when you're capable of a genuine on-topic discussion.

:roll:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Gee... I'd love for you to explain how I was making an ASSumption when your sole argument up til now was for enforcement of the existing law.
It's pretty much impossible for you to admit to being wrong, isn't it? Maybe if you could learn to think a little outside the box and not kneejerk so much...

It's no different than your ASSumption that I'm for McCain since I post against Obama. Just because I'm against his asinine proposal does NOT mean I am for doing nothing.
Meh, it seems you've changed and lost touch with reality.... it's too bad...

which proposal is that again?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?


Yet... he thinks people who earn more money should be taxed less than others..

...and for someone who is so concerned about how his tax dollars are spent to solve problems he sure does like to support the solutions which cost more money than others for issues such as this child support problem. He doesn't desire to solve these problems efficiently. His only priority is to avoid any solution which he believes can possibly be described as "entitlement" despite how much that solution may solve the problem in a cost efficient manner.
 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Possibly so.

For the record, I'm not in favor of an anti-Roe v. Wade. That is, I'm not in favor a nation-wide ban, imposed by 9 justices. I'm in favor of returning the issue to state legislatures.

how do you condone returning the issue of abortion to the states if abortion is equivalent to murder? murder's OK if it's not in your backyard?
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I agree that men can be enslaved, and presumably Obama is in favor of that.

This sentence caught my attention. :laugh:

If you were a politician, you would be endlessly quoted out of context and nationally reamed in chain emails for that one.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?


Yet... he thinks people who earn more money should be taxed less than others..

...and for someone who is so concerned about how his tax dollars are spent to solve problems he sure does like to support the solutions which cost more money than others for issues such as this child support problem. He doesn't desire to solve these problems efficiently. His only priority is to avoid any solution which he believes can possible be described as "entitlement" despite how much that solution may solve the problem in a cost efficient manner.

Incarcerating undereducated Fathers IS BIG Business... Republicans are all for Big Business... they even support the oil speculators
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Just so you know even if you outlaw abortion completely you won't see a decrease in abortions as shown here. So really, people don't give a crap what the government thinks either way. What making abortion illegal DOES do is cause lots of women to die/be mangled/etc in unsafe abortions.

While I guess you could make an argument for the idea that the state shouldn't support something that's wrong from a moral sense, from a humanitarian and practical sense legalized abortion is by far the most humane and decent thing to do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Maybe you could provide an alternative? I'm assuming you agree that the state has an interest in fathers following court decisions and in providing for the care of their children. If you think Obama's solution is bad, and that the status quo is bad, how would you change things to accomplish this goal?

I don't have to as this is about Obama's plan. His sucks as it's nothing more than socialism and allowing people to look to the gov't in order to take "responsibility". Start a thread on the subject of child support and it's problems and I'll participate, but right here and now this is about Obama and his misguided proposal.

Oh don't be ridiculous. First of all Obama's plan isn't socialism, you should probably go learn what socialism is.

You know as well as I do that the reason you don't want to answer my question is because you don't have an answer. You just spouted out the first thing that came into your head and once again it got you in trouble because you don't know what you're talking about. So by all means continue attacking Obama at all costs. I'm pretty sure just about everyone sees through you at this point.