These Things I Believe...

[Orsorum]

At the moment this is a partial list, I only have so much time and so I'll just write what comes to mind.

ABORTION
My quick and dirty opinion: that's nice that you got knocked up, now you have to deal with it. Once a fetus becomes sentient (in the sense that it has brain function... someone help me out here, I'm trying to think how to define it), it is a living being and should be regarded as such, with all the associated legal rights and duties. I'm open to debate as to when exactly "sentience" comes into play, but you try and tell me that a baby isn't a viable human being after 22 weeks and I'll point to myself as an example (was born 13.5 weeks early). Women do not have a right to abortion, any more than men have a right to abandon their duties as a father (whether financial or emotional).

As for men: your role in conception is obvious (unless the psychotic feminazis have their way and we end up going the way of the test tube). You have a responsibility to the women with whom you sleep to treat them well and to accept the consequences of your actions, be it fatherhood (best case) or simple financial support (bare minimum).

TAXES
Progressive taxation is one of the biggest scourges to happen in recent history and is one of the inevitable signs that this country, born of free-market capitalism, can indeed start down that slippery slope of socialism.

WELFARE
I support a short-term support system geared towards helping laid off workers retrain and get new jobs. The government should not be in the business of supporting people for longer than six or eight months (however it takes to retrain a person - heck, it took me four years to get through a degree program, so maybe two years is a good upper limit?). This support should be contingent upon proven effort in either job-hunting or training.

SOCIAL SECURITY
Good god, one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever invented. Well, not as such, but essentially so after the earmarked funds became part of the general budget (IIRC). Even so it's inappropriate and not an area in which the government should be treading. Nevermind the fact that you're paying fifteen percent of each paycheck (including both employee/employer contribution), but you're earning little to no return on that money. I've already given up on receiving anything back of what I put in. It was flawed in its inception and in what it has become - it was never meant to be a savings account, but a supplement, but has been relegated to such by many people. It should be phased out as soon as is possible.

MEDIA
Media is media. It is a tool by which people learn about the world, and that view is one filtered and colored by many people, some of whom have agendas, some of whom do not. I think that it is important that people remember that basic fact of society and take care to take in multiple sources, to weigh what is said and how it is presented. I read Fox, CNN and the BBC, on occasion the India Times, the Economist or Pravda; for punditry I read Pat Buchanan, the Nation, and the American Conservative; for analysis I read the Cato journal and Foreign Affairs.

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

Cheers!
Nate

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Running for office?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Running for office?

No, just feeling a bit... discontented. Feel free to chime in with your own beliefs.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
At the moment this is a partial list, I only have so much time and so I'll just write what comes to mind.

I'm open to debate as to when exactly sentience comes into play, but you try and tell me that a baby isn't sentient after 22 weeks and I'll point to myself as an example (was born 13.5 weeks early). Women do not have a right to abortion, any more than men have a right to abandon their duties as a father (whether financial or emotional).

Nate

not sure what you mean by sentience, it is clear that babies do not have self-awareness(if thats what you mean) as we understand it, studies have been done testing children in front of mirrors, indicating that before a certain age, i believe it was late months to a year, the child does not realize it is themselves they are observing and would go BEHIND the mirror to seek out the image

notice this is not an arguement, im only contending a small portion of whats stated for clarification (yours or mine) and certainly (if you were to ask) i am against aborting those mentioned babies in their later months to a year AFTER BIRTH

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: Orsorum
At the moment this is a partial list, I only have so much time and so I'll just write what comes to mind.

I'm open to debate as to when exactly sentience comes into play, but you try and tell me that a baby isn't sentient after 22 weeks and I'll point to myself as an example (was born 13.5 weeks early). Women do not have a right to abortion, any more than men have a right to abandon their duties as a father (whether financial or emotional).

Nate

not sure what you mean by sentience, it is clear that babies do not have self-awareness(if thats what you mean) as we understand it, studies have been done testing children in front of mirrors, indicating that before a certain age, i believe it was late months to a year, the child does not realize it is themselves they are observing and would go BEHIND the mirror to seek out the image

notice this is not an arguement, im only contending a small portion of whats stated for clarification (yours or mine) and certainly (if you were to ask) i am against aborting those mentioned babies in their later months to a year AFTER BIRTH

Ack... I'm kind of tired, so you'll have to excuse me. I think I was referring to any sort of brain function, though I'm no expert on the subject. All I know is that I was born very very early, and that I was still able to function as a normal adult regardless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Some things I agree with, and some not but I disagree most strongly with the taxation issue. Free market capitalism is like a mindless shark. People didn't need progressive taxes way back when because they took care of each other. That spirit of cooperation and the concept of the common good was more than preached, it was practiced. Now, I see many with the "hell with everyone else" attitude. We eat our own, or would if we were allowed.

I am not wealthy in a material sense by most standards, however I do pay more in taxes than a great many. I consider it my cost of admission in a society worth having. If I wanted to hold onto my money so badly, I could move to a central or south american country where the fruits of "me first" have ripened.

Got to pass on that one.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Some things I agree with, and some not but I disagree most strongly with the taxation issue. Free market capitalism is like a mindless shark. People didn't need progressive taxes way back when because they took care of each other. That spirit of cooperation and the concept of the common good was more than preached, it was practiced. Now, I see many with the "hell with everyone else" attitude. We eat our own, or would if we were allowed.

I am not wealthy in a material sense by most standards, however I do pay more in taxes than a great many. I consider it my cost of admission in a society worth having. If I wanted to hold onto my money so badly, I could move to a central or south american country where the fruits of "me first" have ripened.

Got to pass on that one.

On that subject, I remember someone speaking once about the function of corporations in the young American republic and how they had nowhere near the power that they do now, due to restrictions or some similar affect of the early legal and tax code structure. Something like that. I found it interesting, but lost the site and didn't think to look any deeper into it until recently.

I don't think unrestricted capitalism is a positive - this inevitably leads to abuses of the system. Antitrust, employee rights, etc., have their place in our society and should be included, as they have helped bring this country to where it is now.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
At the moment this is a partial list, I only have so much time and so I'll just write what comes to mind.

ABORTION
My quick and dirty opinion: that's nice that you got knocked up, now you have to deal with it. Once a fetus becomes sentient, it is a living being and should be regarded as such, with all the associated legal rights and duties. I'm open to debate as to when exactly sentience comes into play, but you try and tell me that a baby isn't sentient after 22 weeks and I'll point to myself as an example (was born 13.5 weeks early). Women do not have a right to abortion, any more than men have a right to abandon their duties as a father (whether financial or emotional).

TAXES
Progressive taxation is one of the biggest scourges to happen in recent history and is one of the inevitable signs that this country, born of free-market capitalism, can indeed start down that slippery slope of socialism.

WELFARE
I support a short-term support system geared towards helping laid off workers retrain and get new jobs. The government should not be in the business of supporting people for longer than six or eight months (however it takes to retrain a person - heck, it took me four years to get through a degree program, so maybe two years is a good upper limit?). This support should be contingent upon proven effort in either job-hunting or training.

SOCIAL SECURITY
Good god, one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever invented. Well, not as such, but essentially so after the earmarked funds became part of the general budget (IIRC). Even so it's inappropriate and not an area in which the government should be treading. Nevermind the fact that you're paying seven percent of each paycheck (including both employee/employer contribution), but you're earning little to no return on that money. I've already given up on receiving anything back of what I put in. It was flawed in its inception and in what it has become - it was never meant to be a savings account, but a supplement, but has been relegated to such by many people. It should be phased out as soon as is possible.

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

Cheers!
Nate

ABORTION

That's nice that you got raped. Now you have to deal with it. Women have a right to an abortion; the fetus is part of their bodies, physiologically. Until the fetus can survive normally outside the body without support, sentience or not, abortion is a possible choice, especially if the fetus can harm the mother. We give men the legal right to abandon their children. Your moral determination that this is wrong has no bearing on whether women have the right to abandon their fetus. Men have no physiological connection to the fetus after conception.

TAXES

"Progressive taxation is one of the biggest scourges to happen in recent history and is one of the inevitable signs that this country, born of free-market capitalism, can indeed start down that slippery slope of socialism."

Slippery slope is one of the most easily recognized logical fallacy. Their is no causal connection between progressive taxation and socialism. You would be hard pressed to come up with any example of where this has happened.

Progressive taxation is a tool to redistribute the balance of wealth. Capitalism without true open markets as Adam Smith described leads to an increase of the wealth divide between the rich and the poor. Progressive taxation is needed to counteract this wealth divide. See Ronald Reagan's terms as President, with his trickle-down economics.

WELFARE

You have a good idea with welfare, except the minimum wage is too low to make this viable. An umemployed person can readily find a job that pays minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not enough to support a family. Think of a single mother with children. How can she pay for child care, food, housing, etc. on minimum wage. You think retraining a person a cheap? How much did your four-year degree program cost? That was probably full time too, right? A person on welfare currently has to work in addition to getting the welfare benefits to support her family. Where is the time to retrain? I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, but I think welfare needs to be extended to cover child benefits, etc., not shrunk to the short term. Time scale should not matter on this.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Social security is necessary for our aging population. Where are you going to get money after you stop working? Do you think that every American is going to have the sense to set aside money from every paycheck to save for when they stop working? Do you think that we should just leave it up to each and every person? So many people would be living on little or no money when they retire. Social Security is meant to be exactly what it says - secure. It is not meant to make money for any person. It is supposed to be a secure place for a person to get money after or near retirement. It's a great idea, currently flawed in its implementation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Some things I agree with, and some not but I disagree most strongly with the taxation issue. Free market capitalism is like a mindless shark. People didn't need progressive taxes way back when because they took care of each other. That spirit of cooperation and the concept of the common good was more than preached, it was practiced. Now, I see many with the "hell with everyone else" attitude. We eat our own, or would if we were allowed.

I am not wealthy in a material sense by most standards, however I do pay more in taxes than a great many. I consider it my cost of admission in a society worth having. If I wanted to hold onto my money so badly, I could move to a central or south american country where the fruits of "me first" have ripened.

Got to pass on that one.

On that subject, I remember someone speaking once about the function of corporations in the young American republic and how they had nowhere near the power that they do now, due to restrictions or some similar affect of the early legal and tax code structure. Something like that. I found it interesting, but lost the site and didn't think to look any deeper into it until recently.

I don't think unrestricted capitalism is a positive - this inevitably leads to abuses of the system. Antitrust, employee rights, etc., have their place in our society and should be included, as they have helped bring this country to where it is now.

To me, we have a system in need of reform. Let's take welfare and Social Security.

With welfare, we have encouraged multigenerational dependence. I think the litmus test for aid needs to be stringent, however there some parallel issues that need to be worked out as well. It is all well and good to say "go out and get a job" but when you have a family to feed, and the cost of living exceeds your income, that is not a practical answer. Economic development must occur in tandem for people to have a place to go. How this is best accomplished is something I havent completely figured out, however I know it is a necessity. One of my main disagreements with liberals of the 60s was the rather poorly thought out approach to the reformation of the inner cities. People were in poverty, so give them financial assistance, and all will be well. Get them above the poverty line. Well, that is incomplete, and in light of past experience would be a disengenous approach to the problem. Throwing money at them didnt work, because there was little incentive to turn down free money, but more importantly there was no economic opportunity. That is where we failed with our tax dollars. No real chance for the majority. For my part, my beef with taxes is not the payment of them but the waste in the distribution. If I must pay, someone must get some good out of it, and that person does not have to be me.

As far as SS goes, I think it should be realized that it was business that promulgated it as retirement, not the Govt or private citizens. Consider that traditionally retirement has been paid by private pensions. There was money put aside over and above wages. When SS came to be, businesses suddenly did not need to pay this "extra" expense. They started decreasing pensions. Then in the 80s came one of the greatest shames. Pension raiding. My father worked for 35 years at the same company. He was about to retire, and collect that pension when the company was sold, the fund raided, and then the buyer shortly afterwards purposefully went belly up, and declared bankruptcy. Everything gone. His story was repeated over and over. Now we have 401ks, and that helps, yet not everyone can afford to significantly contribute. They come out of the workers salary, and not over and above it. Also consider that workers who are getting jobs back after the economic slump are earning considerably less than what they were. When one has to pay a mortgage, and earns no extra money to put aside, how does one cope? You dont. You count on SS and THAT is the problem. One can complain about a system that definitely DOES need reform, but when no PRACTICAL solutions are offered for cash strapped families, nothing can get better.


Dang, Im tired, and this probably doesnt make sense in some context. You can catch me later on it

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
ABORTION

That's nice that you got raped. Now you have to deal with it. Women have a right to an abortion; the fetus is part of their bodies, physiologically. Until the fetus can survive normally outside the body without support, sentience or not, abortion is a possible choice, especially if the fetus can harm the mother. We give men the legal right to abandon their children. Your moral determination that this is wrong has no bearing on whether women have the right to abandon their fetus. Men have no physiological connection to the fetus after conception.

In how many cases of rape and incest does pregnancy result? Show me some statistics. Also show me how many women choose to get abortions because of those actions.

Men may have no physiological connection to the child, but many have an emotional connection and certainly a legal obligation to that child. Why are their opinions disregarded?

TAXES

"Progressive taxation is one of the biggest scourges to happen in recent history and is one of the inevitable signs that this country, born of free-market capitalism, can indeed start down that slippery slope of socialism."

Slippery slope is one of the most easily recognized logical fallacy. Their is no causal connection between progressive taxation and socialism. You would be hard pressed to come up with any example of where this has happened.

Progressive taxation is a tool to redistribute the balance of wealth. Capitalism without true open markets as Adam Smith described leads to an increase of the wealth divide between the rich and the poor. Progressive taxation is needed to counteract this wealth divide. See Ronald Reagan's terms as President, with his trickle-down economics.

I'm still waiting to see why there should be abalance of wealth period. If I work hard and save my money, and use my god-given talents wisely to produce weatlh, why should I be penalized by the government for doing so?

And, yes, I agree that it's a slippery slope fallacy, but it was the easiest to think of at the moment.

WELFARE

You have a good idea with welfare, except the minimum wage is too low to make this viable. An umemployed person can readily find a job that pays minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not enough to support a family. Think of a single mother with children. How can she pay for child care, food, housing, etc. on minimum wage. You think retraining a person a cheap? How much did your four-year degree program cost? That was probably full time too, right? A person on welfare currently has to work in addition to getting the welfare benefits to support her family. Where is the time to retrain? I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, but I think welfare needs to be extended to cover child benefits, etc., not shrunk to the short term. Time scale should not matter on this.

Interesting thoughts; I'm still waiting to finalize my position on this. My final thought is that the system should be geared towards helping workers get back on their feet with a minimum of abuse. That's what it comes down to.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Social security is necessary for our aging population. Where are you going to get money after you stop working? Do you think that every American is going to have the sense to set aside money from every paycheck to save for when they stop working? Do you think that we should just leave it up to each and every person? So many people would be living on little or no money when they retire. Social Security is meant to be exactly what it says - secure. It is not meant to make money for any person. It is supposed to be a secure place for a person to get money after or near retirement. It's a great idea, currently flawed in its implementation.

In fact, I think we should. I think financial education (as well as an introduction to basic legal rights and principles) should be taught as early as possible, maybe as a required course once a week during high school or something. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's the government's place to provide that retirement net. People are responsible for their own future and their own actions, so why should someone else watch out for them? More importantly, why should I allow 15% of my paycheck to be allocated to a program by which I will never benefit?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Dang, Im tired, and this probably doesnt make sense in some context. You can catch me later on it

Yeah, I am too. Stupid Latin quiz tomorrow. Seneca can bite me.

And, yes, we will talk later. Much to discuss.

 

[totalcommand]

In how many cases of rape and incest does pregnancy result? Show me some statistics. Also show me how many women choose to get abortions because of those actions.

Men may have no physiological connection to the child, but many have an emotional connection and certainly a legal obligation to that child. Why are their opinions disregarded?

32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17. Do we just ignore these women? Do you believe that the number of rape pregnancies actually matters? The number of it doesn't really matter to me, it's the idea of it. I can't find statistics for how many choose to get abortions, but that doesn't really matter - again, I'm not thinking of the numbers, just the idea.

Their opinions are disregarded because they have no physiological connection to the child. In my mind, their emotional connection is greatly outweighed by the women's emotional and physiological connection. She can be hurt physically by the fetus, the man cannot. (Men have no actual legal obligation while the child is a fetus)

I'm still waiting to see why there should be abalance of wealth period. If I work hard and save my money, and use my god-given talents wisely to produce weatlh, why should I be penalized by the government for doing so?

And, yes, I agree that it's a slippery slope fallacy, but it was the easiest to think of at the moment.


Interesting thoughts; I'm still waiting to finalize my position on this. My final thought is that the system should be geared towards helping workers get back on their feet with a minimum of abuse. That's what it comes down to.

Thinking that you are being penalized by the government is the wrong way to think about these things. The government doesn't collect taxes to penalize you, it collects taxes to pay for certain programs, like welfare, education, etc. So, you are using your god-giving talent to help all the (and the poorest of) the American people.

In fact, I think we should. I think financial education (as well as an introduction to basic legal rights and principles) should be taught as early as possible, maybe as a required course once a week during high school or something. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's the government's place to provide that retirement net. People are responsible for their own future and their own actions, so why should someone else watch out for them? More importantly, why should I allow 15% of my paycheck to be allocated to a program by which I will never benefit?

People cannot forsee stock market crashes and such things. People usually invest their money in mutual funds, which although they are somewhat secure, they still depend on the stock market. Social Security is a rock solid way for people to invest their money for retirement. The fact that 15% of your paycheck is going to program that will never benefit you is wrong. This is why reform of this program is needed. But the idea in itself is good.

 

[Siddhartha]

ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

TAXES: Someone has to pay for all those air craft carriers the US runs and wars the US is fighting.


WELFARE: I am two paychecks from needing a short term or long term helping hand.


Social Security: I am a X number of years from needing help getting by.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

In how many cases of rape and incest does pregnancy result? Show me some statistics. Also show me how many women choose to get abortions because of those actions.

Men may have no physiological connection to the child, but many have an emotional connection and certainly a legal obligation to that child. Why are their opinions disregarded?

32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17. Do we just ignore these women? Do you believe that the number of rape pregnancies actually matters? The number of it doesn't really matter to me, it's the idea of it. I can't find statistics for how many choose to get abortions, but that doesn't really matter - again, I'm not thinking of the numbers, just the idea.

Their opinions are disregarded because they have no physiological connection to the child. In my mind, their emotional connection is greatly outweighed by the women's emotional and physiological connection. She can be hurt physically by the fetus, the man cannot. (Men have no actual legal obligation while the child is a fetus)

I'm still waiting to see why there should be abalance of wealth period. If I work hard and save my money, and use my god-given talents wisely to produce weatlh, why should I be penalized by the government for doing so?

And, yes, I agree that it's a slippery slope fallacy, but it was the easiest to think of at the moment.


Interesting thoughts; I'm still waiting to finalize my position on this. My final thought is that the system should be geared towards helping workers get back on their feet with a minimum of abuse. That's what it comes down to.

Thinking that you are being penalized by the government is the wrong way to think about these things. The government doesn't collect taxes to penalize you, it collects taxes to pay for certain programs, like welfare, education, etc. So, you are using your god-giving talent to help all the (and the poorest of) the American people.

In fact, I think we should. I think financial education (as well as an introduction to basic legal rights and principles) should be taught as early as possible, maybe as a required course once a week during high school or something. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's the government's place to provide that retirement net. People are responsible for their own future and their own actions, so why should someone else watch out for them? More importantly, why should I allow 15% of my paycheck to be allocated to a program by which I will never benefit?

People cannot forsee stock market crashes and such things. People usually invest their money in mutual funds, which although they are somewhat secure, they still depend on the stock market. Social Security is a rock solid way for people to invest their money for retirement. The fact that 15% of your paycheck is going to program that will never benefit you is wrong. This is why reform of this program is needed. But the idea in itself is good.

Your opinions are so close to my own that i don't really have anything to add, i'll just quote you.

:beer:

 

[totalcommand]

Lol thanks. The beer mug is so appropo - I was drunk at the time and trying to sober up.

 

[alchemize]

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

War on terror, war in Iraq, afghanistan, patriot act, court actions.

Since I've never seen anything but liberal responses from you on these topics, let's clarify once and for all.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

War on terror, war in Iraq, afghanistan, patriot act, court actions.

Since I've never seen anything but liberal responses from you on these topics, let's clarify once and for all.

WAR ON TERROR
Well, in my opinion on terror is about as appropriately named as the war on drugs, as asymmetric warfare has always been used and always will be used by combatants facing a significantly stronger enemy. I am not well-defined on this subject, as whom you define as a terrorist depends on whose perspective you adopt. I'm nowhere near at morally relativistic as that, just undecided. I'm usually more concerned with asking why a particular terrorist group was founded, what are their eventual political goals, how closely are they intertwined with the residents of the area they inhabit, etc. This is not out of a desire to concede to terrorists, but rather borne of pragmatism. You can kill a person but you can't always kill a movement, and so it's often useful to see exactly what they're fighting against before condemning them and their followers to death; again, not of agreement with them, just out of pragmatism. Those who commit these crimes should be punished and swiftly, but not so harshly or blindly as to create martyrs.

WAR IN IRAQ
Saddam was a bad man, but he was also a man we once felt was worth supporting. What changed between 1998 and now that he needed to be taken out before OBL? It is my opinion that although Saddam needed to be dealt with, the American people did not need to be strung along in the process (e.g. we should not have been lied to) and that he should have been put on the back burner until Afghanistan was more stable than it currently is.

WAR ON AFGHANISTAN
The government in Afghanistan was responsible for harboring those responsible for 9/11, not to mention the abomination of the government itself. Their downfall was a good action by us and should be both commended and attended to more intently by us.

PATRIOT ACT
My gut instinct says this law was passed in an inappropriate manner, by which I mean it was passed with little to no debate, contained several riders that had little to nothing to do with curbing the use of terrorism (Eli Lilly, anyone). There are of course many provisions of it which are nothing new and have been implemented before, and so I take little issue with those. Those people that would run around like Chicken Little are ignorant of history.

What do you mean by court actions?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

That's nice that you got raped. Now you have to deal with it. Women have a right to an abortion; the fetus is part of their bodies, physiologically. Until the fetus can survive normally outside the body without support, sentience or not, abortion is a possible choice, especially if the fetus can harm the mother. We give men the legal right to abandon their children. Your moral determination that this is wrong has no bearing on whether women have the right to abandon their fetus. Men have no physiological connection to the fetus after conception.

32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17. Do we just ignore these women? Do you believe that the number of rape pregnancies actually matters? The number of it doesn't really matter to me, it's the idea of it. I can't find statistics for how many choose to get abortions, but that doesn't really matter - again, I'm not thinking of the numbers, just the idea.

Their opinions are disregarded because they have no physiological connection to the child. In my mind, their emotional connection is greatly outweighed by the women's emotional and physiological connection. She can be hurt physically by the fetus, the man cannot. (Men have no actual legal obligation while the child is a fetus)

What about bills that allow for abortion in certain circumstances specifically those you mention??

I am all for abortions for people who are raped or in physical danger due to childbirth, but totally against it when used as a means of birth control...too many stupid people out there who WILL abuse the system if given the opportunity, if people took the time to THINK and use preventitive measures such as BIRTH CONTROL then there might not be such a need for abortions, I mean what when couples use both the pill and also condoms the chance of pregnancy is less than 1% and yet we will have people aborting children on a regular basis??

The problem is that we have too many people who don't want to deal with consequences, they only care about themselves and the here and now, why bother worrying about birth control when you can just get an abortion??

Also to totally discount any feelings by the father IMHO seems really unfair and could only be said by someone who isn't even close to having children...I know if I got somene pregnant I would certainly like to know before they kill the child.

 

[chrisms]

I agree with the old proverb that if the seal spits, kick its neighbor.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

Indeed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

RE: abortion...

For now, I am purposefully not saying how I come down on this, because abortion gets to be one of those issues which deteriorates into one side attacking the other rather than dealing with consequences.

For those against abortion, if the mother/father is financially unable to raise the child, how do you make sure that child is provided for? Do you opt for an entitlement program? Regardless of what you think of the mother, the child is not at fault. Do you say that the child must be born and take some responsibility either collectively or individually or do you suggest the child must be born, and then it's on its own?

Remember I am not talking about those with the means to provide, but lets say a 16 year old without the tools to earn a sufficient living. Rants against her for getting pregnant are irrelevant. For our purposes, this girl IS pregnant and everyone has to deal with that reality. The horse is out of the barn so to speak.

What say you?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
RE: abortion...

For now, I am purposefully not saying how I come down on this, because abortion gets to be one of those issues which deteriorates into one side attacking the other rather than dealing with consequences.

For those against abortion, if the mother/father is financially unable to raise the child, how do you make sure that child is provided for? Do you opt for an entitlement program? Regardless of what you think of the mother, the child is not at fault. Do you say that the child must be born and take some responsibility either collectively or individually or do you suggest the child must be born, and then it's on its own?

Remember I am not talking about those with the means to provide, but lets say a 16 year old without the tools to earn a sufficient living. Rants against her for getting pregnant are irrelevant. For our purposes, this girl IS pregnant and everyone has to deal with that reality. The horse is out of the barn so to speak.

What say you?

That's a good question. My immediate answer is to put the baby up for adoption, although I am not sure of the exact costs associated with it.

Of course, one would ask whether the baby would prefer to be alive and poor rather than dead.

 

[Orsorum]

Man, I thought this thread would be more flame-worthy.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

That's a good question. My immediate answer is to put the baby up for adoption, although I am not sure of the exact costs associated with it.

Of course, one would ask whether the baby would prefer to be alive and poor rather than dead.

actually, the demand for adopted children is greater than the number of children up for adoption. So they'd probably be alive and middle-class, not alive and poor.

I'm a big fan of birth control and adoption. I have somewhat similar views on abortion as the OP...I can't really prove it's a human being in the first week or so, but third-trimester abortions should be very illegal.

And before anyone brings up the rape argument, three months is plenty of time to see whether or not someone is pregnant. After that, it's a big grey area for me, I can't say whether or not it's morally right.

I'd prefer that people just use birth control whenever possible, but understand that sometimes circumstances bring about the need for an abortion. I DON'T understand why people get abortions (sometimes) when the baby is just a month or two away from being born. It's just awful.