|
|
| Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules (1167697) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 11 |
||
|
| (1170063) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:32:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:29:54 2014. she does not have to have the child.it's her decision to be on her own or abort. |
|
|
| (1170066) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:39:48 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:32:52 2014. So why bring the man into the decision to begin with? |
|
|
| (1170067) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 11:41:13 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AlM on Sat Apr 5 04:32:09 2014. What do you mean there's been no warming since 1998? Quite a few of the past 10 years have been the hottest years on record only to be trumped when the next year was hotter. |
|
|
| (1170069) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:42:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:39:48 2014. why bring a man into the picture for child support? |
|
|
| (1170073) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 11:47:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:42:47 2014. Because he's the father and parents have a legal and moral obligation to support their kids?If he didn't want to have a kid, he was perfectly free not to have one. |
|
|
| (1170084) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 11:56:44 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 09:35:59 2014. Being "pro-abortion" is a dogwhistle for eugenics, yunno.Yeah, that's what I was saying! He swore up and down that he didn't believe that, but he was surprisingly evasive about what he did believe. |
|
|
| (1170086) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 11:57:12 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:39:48 2014. She was perfectly free not to have sex too. It takes two. |
|
|
| (1170095) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:03:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 11:57:12 2014. So you're saying that women should not have the right to abortion? |
|
|
| (1170102) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:09:21 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:03:42 2014. Huh? Who said that? And that has NOTHING to do with what I said (another reason why you are hilarious, because to talk a point you seem to always have to go to the extreme).And no, I am pro-choice. That is common knowledge here. |
|
|
| (1170105) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:11:44 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:09:21 2014. And no, I am pro-choice. That is common knowledge here.So then, you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term and the man who induced the pregnancy has absolutely no say in the matter. So why did you criticise bingbong when she said exactly that? |
|
|
| (1170115) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:26:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:11:44 2014. ???? You have trouble reading I see.I said it takes two. How does that translate into your extreme, "so you are against abortion"? You get this "idea" of someone in your head, and then no matter what, you assume the "extreme", as that's the only way you know how to debate or have conversation. It's funny. |
|
|
| (1170124) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 12:33:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:51:34 2014. Abortion is nothing of the sort. It simply removes the connection between the fetus and the woman's body.So who belongs to that connection? Is it neither's body? So if I tried removing your kidney without permission and you woke up halfway through the surgery, you'd have no right to tell me to stop? I'd be perfectly justified in "allowing what already is to finish being" and take your kidney? You haven't accomplished your intended action yet, so because of that I can try to stop it. In the event of a pregnancy, the dependency has already begun and no longer requires the use of force. In that situation, would you or would you not have the right to remove the connection (by force if you must) and walk away? Toss up. Depraved indifference and manslaughter are crimes. It would likely depend on other particular circumstances. Anyway pregnancy can be expected, while this scenario is not. That the parasite/organ robber has successfully initiated the procedure doesn't take away your right to make him stop. Unless it's a human being, and you foresaw that he/she could end up there, and put him/her in a position of dependency on you. Just the way a driver of a car can't kill his passenger by slamming the right side of the car into something, or even just poisoning him, and say it was fine because he owns the car. So does every single one of the billions of cells in your body. Is each one of them a human? Are you committing mass murder every time you take a shower and slough skin cells down the drain to their doom? Been through this before here. No, those cells are not organisms, while once conception occurs, you have an organism. It's not a human. Homo sapiens, perhaps? |
|
|
| (1170127) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:36:17 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:26:59 2014. I said it takes two.Yes, it takes two people to initiate a pregnancy. What does that have to do with bingbong's question as to why the man should have any say in the woman's reproductive choice? When you post something in response to a question, it's generally assumed you're trying to address that question, and since complaining about women who have sex is extremely common among anti-choicers, it was reasonable to ask you whether or not you were anti-choice yourself. How does that translate into your extreme, "so you are against abortion"? You exhibited traits common among anti-choicers, so I asked if you were an anti-choicer. You said you weren't, and I accepted that. I don't see what's so extreme there. You get this "idea" of someone in your head, and then no matter what, you assume the "extreme..." This statement is trivially disproven by the fact that I accepted you were pro-choice the minute you said you were. Also, the fact that I didn't "assume" you were anti-choice, I asked you if you were. ...as that's the only way you know how to debate or have conversation. It's funny. You know, considering that every second post you make consists of nothing but "lol," "lmao," or some variation on the concept of "you're crazy," you might want to think twice before claiming that other people don't know how to have a conversation. |
|
|
| (1170134) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:43:41 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:36:17 2014. I don't respond to people that tear everything to the extreme when they are trying (use the word trying) to debate. You aren't worth my time, as you are irrational and use extremes. I have better things to do than debate with something like that. I "waste" my time on the rational people here who are worth debating with. |
|
|
| (1170148) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:54:37 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 12:33:09 2014. Toss up. Depraved indifference and manslaughter are crimes. It would likely depend on other particular circumstances.OK, so you don't actually believe in the right to bodily autonomy. I don't suppose there's any point in arguing abortion with someone who simply doesn't believe in the right to bodily autonomy so I guess I'll just sell one of your kidneys on the black market. I'll make sure you don't wake up before I extract it, because by your argument, you only have the right to stop me before the procedure is completed. Just the way a driver of a car can't kill his passenger by slamming the right side of the car into something, or even just poisoning him, and say it was fine because he owns the car. Alice owns a car. Bob owns a human. One of these people is guilty of slavery. Can you tell which one? Because if you can, then you knew this argument was bullshit before you made it. Homo sapiens, perhaps? We've been through this. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you think this is human? 
|
|
|
| (1170151) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:56:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:43:41 2014. You aren't worth my time, as you are irrational...Right. You couldn't name a single irrational thing I said if you wanted to. You could, however, name many things I said that you believe are irrational because you are irrational yourself. Paging Dr. Dunning. Paging Dr. Kruger. |
|
|
| (1170153) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 13:00:55 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:42:47 2014. Because that child, once born, has the right to proper support from both parents. That includes financially. |
|
|
| (1170163) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 13:07:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:54:37 2014. OK, so you don't actually believe in the right to bodily autonomy. I don't suppose there's any point in arguing abortion with someone who simply doesn't believe in the right to bodily autonomy so I guess I'll just sell one of your kidneys on the black market. I'll make sure you don't wake up before I extract it, because by your argument, you only have the right to stop me before the procedure is completed.Don't change the topic. You've been asking me what I think if I find myself in a situation, not saying I give permission for that situation to develop and approve of it. Stick with the logic, not the rhetoric. Alice owns a car. Bob owns a human. One of these people is guilty of slavery. Can you tell which one? Because if you can, then you knew this argument was bullshit before you made it. So every pregnant woman who chooses to retain the baby is guilty of slavery. Gotcha. We've been through this. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you think this is human? Yes, although even if I laugh, it wouldn't make a difference. |
|
|
| (1170173) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 13:16:56 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 13:07:10 2014. Don't change the topic. You've been asking me what I think if I find myself in a situation, not saying I give permission for that situation to develop and approve of it. Stick with the logic, not the rhetoric.(a) Who says every pregnant woman has "given permission for that situation to develop and approves of it?" (b) That you approve of the situation going in does not deprive you of the right to change your mind at any point. Here's a slightly related example germane to both points— if a woman agrees to have sex, but after she's started, she changes her mind and says "no." Is the man obligated to stop as soon as she tells him to? So every pregnant woman who chooses to retain the baby is guilty of slavery. Here's a pair of binoculars so you can see the point cruising over your head at an altitude of 35,000 feet.  Yes, although even if I laugh, it wouldn't make a difference. Whether you laugh doesn't change a thing. It's not a human. It's an embryo, which given time and luck will eventually become a cat. Oh, did I fail to mention that it was a cat embryo? Sorry. |
|
|
| (1170175) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 13:21:58 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 11:56:44 2014. Yep. You got that one. That's how Luch, ummm...luches I guess. What does a Luch do? |
|
|
| (1170178) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 13:23:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 11:57:12 2014. Not exclusively. |
|
|
| (1170179) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 13:23:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 13:16:56 2014. Pity today's a long workday. Would love to stay and see how THIS fetus here develops. So I'll just have to say, "kitty kitty kitty" and be on my way. :) |
|
|
| (1170184) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 13:30:22 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 13:16:56 2014. Who says every pregnant woman has "given permission for that situation to develop and approves of it?"Ok, so you missed my point here, but I'm more dignified than to insult you for it. That you approve of the situation going in does not deprive you of the right to change your mind at any point. Yes it does. I invite you into my car, decide on a moment's notice I don't want you in my car anymore, and so kill you because it's faster and safer than asking you to step out. Sound ok to you? Yes, I know, the mom can't ask the fetus to step out. Ok, so what if the person in my car can't understand me, and is too big to be pushed out? The car analogy does work because you're turning the human body into a commodity of ownership. The woman "owns" her body (just another way of phrasing bodily autonomy). As soon as you begin to speak in those terms, all analogies of ownership are on the table. The cat embryo ruse does not assist your argument. But thanks. BTW, come down from another planet and look at a picture of a newborn baby and then that same person in their 80s or 90s. Would you think they are the same species, let alone the same person? |
|
|
| (1170189) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 13:42:15 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 13:30:22 2014. So you're going to keep Nilet in your car for nine months and feed and water him every day? How noble! :) |
|
|
| (1170193) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 13:50:41 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Apr 5 13:30:22 2014. Ok, so you missed my point here, but I'm more dignified than to insult you for it.OK, so what was your point, exactly? Yes it does. I invite you into my car, decide on a moment's notice I don't want you in my car anymore, and so kill you because it's faster and safer than asking you to step out. Sound ok to you? That analogy just doesn't work. See, my point earlier was that ownership of property is not the same thing as bodily autonomy. Asking someone not to sit in your car is not the same as asking them not to feed off your body. If you were being pursued by a werewolf who was trying to bite you so that'd you'd become a werewolf yourself, you probably wouldn't think twice about loading the silver bullet. Ok, so what if the person in my car can't understand me, and is too big to be pushed out? You're really reaching here. First of all, if he can't understand you, how did you invite him into your car in the first place? If he simply stepped in of his own volition without asking you first, then you seriously need to take a step back and think about how this might apply to pregnancy. The car analogy does work because you're turning the human body into a commodity of ownership. The woman "owns" her body (just another way of phrasing bodily autonomy). As soon as you begin to speak in those terms, all analogies of ownership are on the table. That's not true. Referring to bodily autonomy as "ownership" of your body is an analogy that helps people understand the concept, but it's not the same thing as property ownership. The key distinction, of course, is that your right to control your body is absolute. No claim on it is valid, and no contract for it is enforceable. You can sell your car, but you can't sell your body; even if you agree to an imposition on your body, you can withdraw your consent at any time. That's why slavery is illegal even for people who would voluntarily sell themselves. Speaking of which, you didn't answer my earlier question— if a woman agrees to have sex, but after she's started, she changes her mind and says "no," is the man obligated to stop as soon as she tells him to? The cat embryo ruse does not assist your argument. But thanks. Oh, thank you. Watching you fall for it twice was the most hilarious thing ever. BTW, come down from another planet and look at a picture of a newborn baby and then that same person in their 80s or 90s. Would you think they are the same species, let alone the same person? Even as a human, I probably couldn't tell that they're the same individual, but if I were an alien, I'd probably be able to identify them as the same species. Assuming, of course, that I had eyes that pick up the same wavelengths of light and a visual cortex that works about the same way as a human's does and so forth. |
|
|
| (1170198) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 13:56:39 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 12:26:59 2014. He's the resurrection of Saul Alinsky. Without being funny. |
|
|
| (1170200) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 14:01:38 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 13:56:39 2014. Since when was Saul Alinsky a comedian?And what's so bad about him anyway? He seems like a pretty decent guy to me. |
|
|
| (1170241) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:15:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 12:56:45 2014. Most of what you say is irrational. I lost any respect for any word you had to say years ago already, when you claimed Clinton was even right of center.You are so far to the left and irrational, that you come back up on the other side. |
|
|
| (1170244) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:19:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 13:42:15 2014. I wouldn't want to spend 9 minutes in a room with that irrational fanatic much less any more time.He's perhaps the most ridiculous person on SubChat, he even has streetcarman beat. |
|
|
| (1170245) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:21:02 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:15:43 2014. I lost any respect for any word you had to say years ago already, when you claimed Clinton was even right of center.Gramm. Leach. Bliley. If you're so far to the right that you think Bill "End Welfare As We Know It" Clinton was a liberal, then you're so irrational that there's no point in even trying to debate you; all I can do is mock you. Of course, I knew that going in, which is why I've been mocking you all this time. |
|
|
| (1170252) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:23:48 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:19:45 2014. ... irrational fanatic...Name one irrational position I hold. |
|
|
| (1170253) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:24:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 11:47:43 2014. I agree he should be responsible, but you seem to forget that she was free not to have one also. It takes two. |
|
|
| (1170256) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:25:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:24:32 2014. OK, so if a child is born, both parents are responsible. Glad we agree.Of course, no one ever said the mother was or shouldn't be responsible for the kid, so it was confusing that you brought it up. |
|
|
| (1170264) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:30:30 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:25:43 2014. All you say is "he should have kept it in his pants", well she was a willing participant. The blame isn't on all on the guy. |
|
|
| (1170269) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:34:22 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:30:30 2014. I said if he didn't want to become a father, then he should have kept it in his pants. If he was a willing participant then he is responsible for the child. His partner is not relevant to that calculation. |
|
|
| (1170275) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:37:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:34:22 2014. It takes two. But I doubt you would have too much trouble getting into that situation, as with your thinking, I don't know who you would wind with. You'd scare off any potential mate unless this is some sort of internet persona, and not actually the way you behave in real life. |
|
|
| (1170280) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:42:14 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:37:33 2014. It takes two.How does that have any bearing on the fact that men have just as much responsibility for their children as women do, and do not have any special right to abdicate that position. But I doubt you would have too much trouble getting into that situation, as with your thinking, I don't blah blah blah blah Oh please. You'd kill to have my sex life. |
|
|
| (1170283) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 15:45:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:42:14 2014. and do not have any special right to abdicate that position.And yet, women have the right to do so via abortion. |
|
|
| (1170284) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:48:06 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 15:45:43 2014. How is abortion abdicating responsibility to her children? Last time I checked, a woman gets an abortion because she chooses not to have a child— a choice that men are just as capable of making. |
|
|
| (1170289) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 16:00:50 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 15:48:06 2014. Last time I checked, a woman gets an abortion because she chooses not to have a child— a choice that men are just as capable of making.Women have the legal right to abdicate their unwanted child via abortion. Men do not have this legal right which leaves them on the hook for punitive child support payments. Either return to the regime where child support is only issued for the children of married women, or permit men the ability to abdicate custody and legal control of these children. |
|
|
| (1170292) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Apr 5 16:11:15 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:15:43 2014. Bill Clinton is right of center. The extremists in the Republican Party have shifted the political center in this country so far to the right that there is no longer a mainstream left wing party. |
|
|
| (1170304) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Apr 5 16:40:06 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Apr 5 16:11:15 2014. But if Bill Clinton is right of center, an Obama is slightly more liberal on some issues and slightly less liberal on others, that would make Obama right of center.So why did he only get 52% of the vote against a far more conservative candidate? My point is that I think the center has moved rightward, and what used to be right of center isn't any more. |
|
|
| (1170306) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Apr 5 16:42:41 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 16:00:50 2014. How are child support payments punitive? They are purely compensatory in every jurisdiction I'm aware of.And men can reduce their chance of having a child to an extremely low percentage by using a condom. |
|
|
| (1170329) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 17:44:20 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 14:01:38 2014. It's his little antisemitic way of trotting out the original conservative definition of "librul" ... like nobody notices that. |
|
|
| (1170334) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 17:54:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 16:00:50 2014. Women have the legal right to abdicate their unwanted child via abortion.No, they don't. Women have the right to choose not to have a child in the first place, just like men do. If a woman is considering an abortion, then she does not yet have a child, and is therefore not abdicating responsibility for a child. She is choosing not to have a child at all. If she has the child, she is no less responsible for it than the father. Men do not have this legal right which leaves them on the hook for punitive child support payments. Taking care of your child is "punitive?" Seriously? It's called being a responsible parent. If you don't want to be a parent, you can choose not to be regardless of your gender. If you do want to become a parent, you are responsible for your child regardless of your gender. Simple concept. After all, if a father is awarded sole custody of his child, do you seriously think the mother won't be expected to pay child support? |
|
|
| (1170339) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 18:03:54 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Apr 5 16:11:15 2014. Ding! |
|
|
| (1170340) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 18:06:18 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 5 15:19:45 2014. Well ... back to the original issue - women have to spend nine months in irrationality in order to procreate. If he's going to be comparing women to a seatmate, then let's see if he can do nine months with Nilet. It's not like we're asking him to chip in for child support too. :) |
|
|
| (1170347) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 18:18:03 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AlM on Sat Apr 5 16:40:06 2014. But if Bill Clinton is right of center, an Obama is slightly more liberal on some issues and slightly less liberal on others, that would make Obama right of center.Yes, that would be the case. Although I don't think there are any issues on which Obama is left of Clinton. So why did he only get 52% of the vote against a far more conservative candidate? That's not hard to explain mathematically. To provide a very rough estimate— 10% of the population are extreme right-wingers who vote for Romney. 10% of the population are less extreme right-wingers who vote for Obama. 40% of the population are centrists or left-wingers who don't bother voting at all because a choice between two nearly identical conservatives is not worth the trip to the polls. 21% of the population are centrists or left-wingers but vote for Obama anyway because they perceive him as being the lesser of two evils (even if only slightly). 19% of the population are low-information voters who don't have any political beliefs and probably don't know what either candidate believes anyway; the vast majority of them vote Republican for a couple of reasons— Republicans have a bigger ad campaign, Republicans are better at providing glib arguments that fall apart under analysis but seem convincing if you don't look too closely, and there are plenty of people who consider "voting Republican" to be a matter of tribal identity; an empty gesture you perform to show you belong to a social group with no real-world consequences, much like cheering for the local baseball team. So after election day, Obama wins by a slim majority of the votes cast even though he doesn't represent the beliefs of most Americans. Obviously, those numbers are hardly exact, but you understand the general concept. |
|
|
| (1170358) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 18:25:40 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 17:54:47 2014. After all, if a father is awarded sole custody of his child, do you seriously think the mother won't be expected to pay child support?Given that the cases of fathers having sole custody involve mothers so terrible the court is obliged to hand the children to the fathers, in most cases, we're taking about broken women who are either in prison or on drugs. One of my former co-workers grew up with her dad and he got nothing from the mother. If a woman is considering an abortion The current status is that if a woman has an abortion, the man avoids child support payments. If the woman chooses to have the child the man is forced to make those payments. Unmarried men should have the option to choose to make those payments and abdicate any future parental rights, just as how women have the choice to have an abortion. Taking care of your child is "punitive? When the courts take nearly 20% of your paycheck and offer nothing in return except for the threat of imprisonment in some cases, it is punitive. I've seen men make payments to children they never see, while the women squander the money with little intervention from child welfare agencies. |
|
|
| (1170374) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 18:54:25 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 5 18:25:40 2014. The current status is that if a woman has an abortion, the man avoids child support payments. If the woman chooses to have the child the man is forced to make those payments. Unmarried men should have the option to choose to make those payments and abdicate any future parental rights, just as how women have the choice to have an abortion.Bullshit. No one has the "right" to become a parent without taking responsibility for their child. The current status is: You have the right to choose whether or not you reproduce, regardless of gender. If you choose to reproduce, you are responsible for your child, regardless of gender. Once you have entirely completed your role in the process of reproduction, it is too late to declare that you don't want to become a parent after all and abdicate responsibility for your children, regardless of gender. That a woman's role in the process of reproduction concludes nine months after a man's is a simple fact of biology; a silver lining to the fact that she has to put up with the misery of pregnancy and childbirth while he doesn't. If men need special rights to compensate them for lacking this female biological advantage, then women should be entitled to monetary compensation from any man who gets them pregnant in order to make things even. When the courts take nearly 20% of your paycheck and offer nothing in return except for the threat of imprisonment in some cases, it is punitive. Compelling you to uphold your legal and moral responsibilities is not "punitive," it's what society does. Child support is no more punitive than taxation. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 11 |
||