• 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."

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
They exist because you are too craven to tell women they cannot commit immoral acts.

China implemented a 1 child policy. If they can, then why can we not implement a simliar policy. Other than your a fore mentioned cowardice?
Because we aren't a shitty country like China perhaps? Who gets to decide which acts are immoral? A christian fascist like yourself is obviously a bad choice, unless we wanted to recreate the dark ages.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,633
136
The constitution?

Edit: Your misogyny is showing through again. It's interesting that you only mention women committing these immoral acts, but not men. Maybe there's a critical mass of teenage pregnancies via in-vitro fertilizatio?
Made me laugh. Thanks.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Forgive him actuarial, he still doesnt understand the difference between pregnancy and birth, which is why in his world only the woman is responsible for a child being born.
Actually it seems that you do not understand the difference between pregnancy and birth.

A man and woman may be mutually responsible for pregnancy (neglecting the fact that all of the most effective means of reversible BC are controlled by the woman), but a woman is SOLELY responsible for birth, as she has 100% choice to end the pregnancy for ending reason.

The constitution?

Edit: Your misogyny is showing through again. It's interesting that you only mention women committing these immoral acts, but not men. Maybe there's a critical mass of teenage pregnancies via in-vitro fertilizatio?
I heard the constitution had this thing called amendments.

Women have 100% choice to give birth. If giving birth is 100% her choice why should she not be 100% responsible?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Actually it seems that you do not understand the difference between pregnancy and birth.

A man and woman may be mutually responsible for pregnancy (neglecting the fact that all of the most effective means of reversible BC are controlled by the woman), but a woman is SOLELY responsible for birth, as she has 100% choice to end the pregnancy for ending reason.



I heard the constitution had this thing called amendments.

Women have 100% choice to give birth. If giving birth is 100% her choice why should she not be 100% responsible?
Because according to leftists, men are evil and there responsible
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Because we aren't a shitty country like China perhaps? Who gets to decide which acts are immoral? A christian fascist like yourself is obviously a bad choice, unless we wanted to recreate the dark ages.
So you think the government should not be able to decide which acts are immoral?

So I take you feel that rape should be legal? (lets make clear I do not hold this position)

And I think it is pretty obvious that abusing children is immoral. And that bringing into the world children you do not have the ability and/or interest in raising is immoral. But apparently liberals feel differently.

Nice selective / clipped quote. Link the thread- go ahead, just so we can all see more of your usual raving dishonesty.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33355803#post33355803

There you are. Although the link was there in the quote.

In short. A drug addict woman had 7 children removed from her, at different times, because she abused them. In answer to the question of whether the woman should be forcibly sterilized Jhhnn
Forced sterilization? Why not put it in other terms, make a different offer, like "free & voluntary"?
Clearly Jhhnn feels that the "right" of a drug addict to pop out children is more important than the right of children to not be abused.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I heard the constitution had this thing called amendments.

Women have 100% choice to give birth. If giving birth is 100% her choice why should she not be 100% responsible?
So just to be clear: the act of not aborting a fetus and bringing it to term is immoral?

Premarital sex: Moral
Bringing the child to term: Immoral
Having an abortion: Moral

I can't see any other way where the woman, but not the man, is the only one who committed an immoral act when there is a teenage pregnancy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So just to be clear: the act of not aborting a fetus and bringing it to term is immoral?

Premarital sex: Moral
Bringing the child to term: Immoral
Having an abortion: Moral

I can't see any other way where the woman, but not the man, is the only one who committed an immoral act when there is a teenage pregnancy.
The act of not aborting a fetus when you cannot support the a child is immoral.

And in fact I would assume you would agree with

Premarital sex: Moral
Having an abortion: Moral

right?

All we are disagreeing on is whether CHOOSING to have a child you cannot afford is immoral or not.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The act of not aborting a fetus when you cannot support the a child is immoral.

And in fact I would assume you would agree with

Premarital sex: Moral
Having an abortion: Moral

right?

All we are disagreeing on is whether CHOOSING to have a child you cannot afford is immoral or not.
I believe that premarital sex can be both moral and immoral and I wouldn't consider teenage unprotected sex moral. Neither would I consider having an abortion moral.

I do believe both should be legal though.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I believe that premarital sex can be both moral and immoral and I wouldn't consider teenage unprotected sex moral.
Having unprotected sex when you do not want a child is not really a matter of morality. It is a matter of stupidity.

Neither would I consider having an abortion moral.

I do believe both should be legal though.
Interesting and scary. Because the only reason to be opposed to abortion is if the fetus is a person. And if the fetus is a person than killing it would be murder... so it seems you are saying murder should be legal o_O
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
And that bringing into the world children you do not have the ability and/or interest in raising is immoral. But apparently liberals feel differently.
So you feel that an abortion against her will is moral and just. Or if you think they shouldn't have kids. Or forcibly sterilizing someone because you think they deserve it. I guess to a fascist like you that sounds reasonable.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,633
136
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33355803#post33355803

There you are. Although the link was there in the quote.

In short. A drug addict woman had 7 children removed from her, at different times, because she abused them. In answer to the question of whether the woman should be forcibly sterilized Jhhnn


Clearly Jhhnn feels that the "right" of a drug addict to pop out children is more important than the right of children to not be abused.
Interesting that you'd deny them life at all, cite the totalitarian regime of China as a role model for us to follow.

This is, of course, standard rightwing authoritarian dogma- find the worst case scenario, generalize from there to restrict the freedom of all citizens.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So you feel that an abortion against her will is moral and just. Or if you think they shouldn't have kids.
If you cannot afford to have children you should not have them. You feel that imposing the costs of raising a child on others against their will is moral and just? And yes forced abortion is more just than that, because the abortion is a direct consequence of her chosen actions.

Or forcibly sterilizing someone because you think they deserve it. I guess to a fascist like you that sounds reasonable.
So you agree that the "right" of a drug addict woman, who has 7 children remove because she abused them, to have more children is more important than the right of a child to not be abused?

Yeah that does seem reasonable to me. But then again I think child abuse is immoral. I guess you disagree o_O
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Interesting that you'd deny them life at all, cite the totalitarian regime of China as a role model for us to follow.
If freedom is define as the right to screw over society and abuse children why would anyone support freedom?

This is, of course, standard rightwing authoritarian dogma- find the worst case scenario, generalize from there to restrict the freedom of all citizens.
I never said I was in favor of sterilizing every woman who abused her children. If say she had abused only her first child I would see it being reasonable to give her a 2nd chance. But 7 chances is clearly enough.

EDIT: Yeah those "CRAZY" conservatives trying to prevent children from being abused :\
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Having unprotected sex when you do not want a child is not really a matter of morality. It is a matter of stupidity.
I guess we'll have to disagree, but your posting history suggests you are not truly in favour of both premarital sex and abortion as virtues, and that you are merely taking these positions now because you've talked yourself into a corner.

Interesting and scary. Because the only reason to be opposed to abortion is if the fetus is a person. And if the fetus is a person than killing it would be murder... so it seems you are saying murder should be legal o_O
I do not believe a fetus is a person. And even if a fetus was a person, failing to bring an unviable fetus to term is not murder.

I do not believe that abortion should be legal once a fetus is viable though.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I guess we'll have to disagree, but your posting history suggests you are not truly in favour of both premarital sex and abortion as virtues, and that you are merely taking these positions now because you've talked yourself into a corner.
I think I have pretty clearly been in favor of abortions.

As for premarital sex. The real problem is that premarital sex is a very broad category.

There are certainly forms of premarital sex I would find distasteful (which you are free to read as immoral). But not all. And whether or not a condom is used is not how would determine its morality.

The real issue there is that the choice to engage in premarital sex does not really intrude on me, whereas the choice not to abort a child you cannot afford does.

I do not believe a fetus is a person. And even if a fetus was a person, failing to bring an unviable fetus to term is not murder.

I do not believe that abortion should be legal once a fetus is viable though.
Then based on your only just stated beliefs a fetus (at least before viability) is just a bunch of unwanted cells. It is no different than say a rotting tooth. How then would abortion be immoral?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,633
136
The real issue there is that the choice to engage in premarital sex does not really intrude on me, whereas the choice not to abort a child you cannot afford does.
That "intrusion" would amount to, what, a dime or a dollar per year for all such children combined? This is the basis for your outrage?

Well, provided you're actually old enough to have a job & pay taxes at all...
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
That "intrusion" would amount to, what, a dime or a dollar per year for all such children combined? This is the basis for your outrage?

Well, provided you're actually old enough to have a job & pay taxes at all...
The government spends $100s of billions of dollars bailing out these people...

Think:
Medicaid
Food stamps
Subsidized daycare
EITC
WIC
Section 8
etc

So, no it amounts to $1000s/taxpayer in subsidies.

EDIT: But hey if you do not want a $1000 I will gladly take it off your hands.

And I didnt even get into the other societal costs like higher crime, wasting educational time attempting to educate their children, abused children, etc.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
liberals have no problems rewarding those that fail at life. and then calling those that question those rewards evil.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
liberals have no problems rewarding those that fail at life. and then calling those that question those rewards evil.
Yea, helping kids eat sure is a terrible thing, that money could go murdering a bunch of children in a foreign country. Also someone has to help keep the rightwing base alive, most of them are too stupid to live without government handouts.

Yeah that does seem reasonable to me. But then again I think child abuse is immoral. I guess you disagree o_O
Awww look, an fascist trying to pretend they have morals, how hilarious.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yea, helping kids eat sure is a terrible thing, that money could go murdering a bunch of children in a foreign country. Also someone has to help keep the rightwing base alive, most of them are too stupid to live without government handouts.

So much for liberals believing in facts.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I guess we'll have to disagree, but your posting history suggests you are not truly in favour of both premarital sex and abortion as virtues, and that you are merely taking these positions now because you've talked yourself into a corner.



I do not believe a fetus is a person. And even if a fetus was a person, failing to bring an unviable fetus to term is not murder.

I do not believe that abortion should be legal once a fetus is viable though.
That is my belief as well. Until the fetus is viable outside the womb, only the mother can nurture it and there is no practical way to defend the fetus' G-d-given rights without infringing on those of the mother.

Once they are born, however, no matter how much I hate the parents that refuse to feed their children even after we've provided the money to do so, hungry children in America are simply not acceptable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY