Pro-Life Congressman And Doctor Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion

[shira]

Except for the little problem that arguing for a woman's right to choose is basically the same as arguing for AIGs right to choose.

If you choices require massive government bailouts, and as a consequence inflicting harm on others, then you lose the right to choose.

EDIT: What is inconsistent is arguing that women are capable of making (implicitly good) choices about their life and then arguing for massive bailouts to support those choices.

People make all sorts of poor life choices all the time. A man who's the sole bread-winner of his family of four may decide to go into business for himself. If his business fails and he's unable to provide for his family, your logic would dictate that we murder everyone in the family, since (according to you) it's unacceptable to burden ("harm") everyone else by forcing them to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for this family.

You might argue that forcing a woman against her will into receiving an abortion is one thing, but murdering human beings is another. But your basic argument is that it's wrong to burden the rest of society for the bad choices of individuals, and you're willing to trample all over individual liberties to "protect" society. So why would you draw the line at murder? Based on your stated values, I can't think of any reason.

 

[EXman]

I don't understand this attitude. The fact that he had an affair shows he doesn't take his wedding vows seriously (unless he's in an open marriage, which is possible). If he'll break his wedding vows he made to his wife, then how can I expect him not to break a promise he made to me, a random stranger (and voter)? The fact a politician cheats on his/her spouse goes to character, and is entirely relevant in a campaign.

Since he is a politician you can bet your bottom dollar that he will break a vow... or two.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The argument is the exact same thing the Republicans argue for with regards to markets.

No, it isn't.

But imagine if the CEO of Goldman got up at the Republican Convention and starting talking about "My bank, my choice".

What if he did? What would it have to do with abortion?

It would be worse than Romney's 47% comment and Todd Akin's rape comment put together.

So?

So you want to bail out people for making stupid choices?

This has nothing to do wtih "bailouts."

The entire basis of letting people make choices implies that you can trust them to make good choices.

Wrong again. The basis of letting people make choices about their own bodies is personal liberty.

Or you are insane.

It surprises me very little that liberty appears to be insanity to an authoritarian ignoramus.

What do you call food stamps, WIC, medicaid? Those are bailouts.

I call them irrelevancies.

 

[nehalem256]

People make all sorts of poor life choices all the time. A man who's the sole bread-winner of his family of four may decide to go into business for himself. Ifhis business fails and he's unable to provide for his family, your logic would dictate that we murder everyone in the family, since (according to you) it's unacceptable to burden ("harm") everyone else by forcing them to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for this family.

You might argue that forcing a woman against her will into receiving an abortion is one thing, but murdering human beings is another. But your basic argument is that it's wrong to burden the rest of society for the bad choices of individuals, and you're willing to trample all over individual liberties to "protect" society. So why would you draw the line at murder? Based on your stated values, I can't think of any reason.

Because the man did not go into business with the intent to fail. And starting a business has obvious societal benefits. Also the difference that presumably the man can just get a new job to support his family. After all either he previously had such a job, or was able to run a business with sufficient skill at least for some period of time so he could support his family.

There is no benefit to ANYONE to allowing 15 year old girls to be mothers. Not to the fetus. Not to society. Not even to the girl herself. And a teenage mother is permanently impaired in her ability to raise her child.

And society tramples on individual liberty all the time. Why are laws against drugs and prostitution allowed? Why are there laws against minors smoking and drinking? Are you suggesting we must allow 15 year olds to prostitute themselves in the name of individual liberty?

Also the fact that murder is wrong. Whereas abortion is removing a ball of cells.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it isn't.

Ok. I guess you are technically right. Republicans argue that market liberty will be good for the economy.

What if he did? What would it have to do with abortion?


So?

Its the exact same pro-abortion statement.

"My body. My choice"
"My bank. My choice"

This has nothing to do wtih "bailouts."

Bailouts are the whole reason for mandatory abortions.

Wrong again. The basis of letting people make choices about their own bodies is personal liberty.

So then I assume you would support 15 year old girls being allowed to be prostitutes. In the name of personal liberty?

It surprises me very little that liberty appears to be insanity to an authoritarian ignoramus.

Liberty that means nothing more than the right to screw me over I am opposed to for some reason. Your rights end when then impose on my liberty, or result in people dying.

The right to Freedom of the Press does not mean I have to buy you a printing press.

I call them irrelevancies.

Then you appear to have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Because the man did not go into business with the intent to fail.

The teen didn't have sex with the intent to get pregnant. Why do the man's intentions matter more than the teenage girl's? This is about results, not intentions. If a teenage girl gets pregnant, mandatory abortion. If a man starts a business that fails, murder his family. It's only fair. And maybe it will give him the motivation he needs to succeed!

 

[nehalem256]

The teen didn't have sex with the intent to get pregnant. Why do the man's intentions matter more than the teenage girl's? This is about results, not intentions. If a teenage girl gets pregnant, mandatory abortion. If a man starts a business that fails, murder his family. It's only fair. And maybe it will give him the motivation he needs to succeed!

(1) We are discussing having a child, not having sex.

(2) As was pointed out the man's condition is temporary. He can find a new job and support it. A teenage girl is essentially incapable of finding a job that can support a family.

(3) The man has an assumed wife. 2 parents are fundamentally better equipped to raise a child.

(4) Abortion and murder are 2 entirely different things.

 

[momeNt]

(1) We are discussing having a child, not having sex.

(2) As was pointed out the man's condition is temporary. He can find a new job and support it. A teenage girl is essentially incapable of finding a job that can support a family.

(3) The man has an assumed wife. 2 parents are fundamentally better equipped to raise a child.

(4) Abortion and murder are 2 entirely different things.

You do realize that her parents can help support the child that you want to rip out of her body against hers and possibly her parents consent right?

 

[nehalem256]

You do realize that her parents can help support the child that you want to rip out of her body against hers and possibly her parents consent right?

haha. Again you resort to sensationalism about what abortion is to make it sound super bad.

And what about all of the teens that do not have supportive parents? And what companies allow you to put your grandchildren onto their health plans?

And:

I guess we could set up an "adopt a child system". So pro-lifers and feminists could sponsor women who could not afford children to have them anyway. Let them put their money where their mouth is.

 

[momeNt]

haha. Again you resort to sensationalism about what abortion is to make it sound super bad.

And:

Yea but you aren't answering the question.

Do you propose a means test on the girls family to see if they can care for it and not burden society?

Income and willingness requirements?

 

[nehalem256]

Yea but you aren't answering the question.

Do you propose a means test on the girls family to see if they can care for it and not burden society?

Income and willingness requirements?

I would propose means testing the girl exclusive of the family.

Then if the girls parents are willing to take legal responsibility you could include them as well.

 

[momeNt]

I would propose means testing the girl exclusive of the family.

Then if the girls parents are willing to take legal responsibility you could include them as well.

Means test every woman exclusive of their family and husband then too. Pretty sure underage parents can get aid for their child by the way, so you'd be accomplishing nothing.

 

[nehalem256]

Means test every woman exclusive of their family and husband then too.

A woman's husband is legally responsible for his children and so would be included in the means testing.

Pretty sure underage parents can get aid for their child by the way, so you'd be accomplishing nothing.

This is exactly what I want to end. Seems to me you agreeing with me that underage parents are unable to support their children.

 

[momeNt]

A woman's husband is legally responsible for his children and so would be included in the means testing.



This is exactly what I want to end. Seems to me you agreeing with me that underage parents are unable to support their children.

A LOT of people are unable to support their children without government aid now. Welfare creates a floor that labor seekers don't need to bargain for anymore, and there is no incentive to supply it.

Just because we agree that many people are unable to support children has nothing to do with the argument. You advocate abortion for "underage" parents instead of providing subsidies for them, yet you want to continue subsidies for parents of some arbitrary proper age.

 

[Atreus21]

Cheapened how?

...I suppose in the same regard that women are cheapened when they give themselves away too easily.

 

[dank69]

...I suppose in the same regard that women are cheapened when they give themselves away too easily.

Just the women?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

...I suppose in the same regard that women are cheapened when they give themselves away too easily.

Lord knows if a woman doesn't remain chaste the best life she can hope for is a marriage to a commoner who will demand an excessive dowry for accepting damaged goods. This goes double if she is past the prime age of 15 or doesn't have good birthing hips. At that point, it's more economically sensible to stash her in a nunnery or leave her to whoring.

 

[CptObvious]

This guy is a complete piece of shit.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/nov/15/scott-desjarlais-supported-abortions-slept-patient/

 

[Mursilis]

This guy is a complete piece of shit.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/nov/15/scott-desjarlais-supported-abortions-slept-patient/

Indeed he is, but that doesn't make him unique in the slightest. That people continue to look to politicians as saviors amazes me. I guess that's why scammers continue to find easy victims. There's still a percentage of the population who will touch a hot stove time after time, get burned, and still not learn.