or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › No Filibuster for you!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No Filibuster for you! - Page 3

post #81 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
But aren't you trying to make it into a pollical issue by making abortion illegal? You are trying to force your religious beliefs on other families that don't share them.

If you really wanted it to be a moral issue, you would leave it legal and rely on the morals of the individual to make the decision. If they choose wrong, they go to hell - but only god is supposed to make that judgement, right?

Well, gosh, isn't this true about any law that is passed (or not)? All laws are about "forced morality". They are a statement of we collectively find to be right and wrong. So it is moral and political.
post #82 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
But aren't you trying to make it into a pollical issue by making abortion illegal? You are trying to force your religious beliefs on other families that don't share them.

If you really wanted it to be a moral issue, you would leave it legal and rely on the morals of the individual to make the decision. If they choose wrong, they go to hell - but only god is supposed to make that judgement, right?

Why should my daughter suffer an unwanted pregnancy because some group of strangers believe in a human soul?

....blast, you caught me before my edit.

(That original post was a too broad at best and cockeyed at worst.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #83 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, gosh, isn't this true about any law that is passed (or not)? All laws are about "forced morality". They are a statement of we collectively find to be right and wrong. So it is moral and political.

It seems to me that objections to 1st trimester abortions require a belief in god (who invests the soul in the egg) - so a law against 1st trimester abortion is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
What I absolutely do not understand with the abortion lobby is the level of denial -- people who can look you right in the eye after describing partial-birth abortion and quip something about the Camel's nose under the tent; it's beyond ridiculous.

Why not just admit -- like so many past cultures, or even in some present cultures like India -- that the parents have life-or-death control over their children? In Rome the father could choose to expose an infant if it was unwanted, in India they drown baby girls in pails of milk, heck, even animals have this 'natural' right to kill their young.

What's with all this equivocation?

Why use the euphemism "pro-life?" Why not just be honest and admit that you want the government and not families to be the sole arbiter of whether pregnant women give birth?

And to bring this back to Alito, this is really what these Supreme Court fights are about: Whether you want the strict constructionist view of things, where our constitutional rights are read very narrowly, or the liberal view, where we take the 9th and 10th amendments seriously and don't try to give government more power over our personal lives at every opportunity.
post #85 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Why use the euphemism "pro-life?" Why not just be honest and admit that you want the government and not families to be the sole arbiter of whether pregnant women give birth?

And to bring this back to Alito, this is really what these Supreme Court fights are about
: Whether you want the strict constructionist view of things, where our constitutional rights are read very narrowly, or the liberal view, where we take the 9th and 10th amendments seriously and don't try to give government more power over our personal lives at every opportunity.

BRussell, if your polls are right, you don't have anything to worry about. This will just go back to the people. This whole issue is made about ten times as contentious as it needs to be becuase it hasn't been decided at the polls.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #86 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Why use the euphemism "pro-life?" Why not just be honest and admit that you want the government and not families to be the sole arbiter of whether pregnant women give birth?

Because the core belief is that the pregnant woman is carrying nothing less than a human life.

A position derived from the support of that life is termed pro-life.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #87 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
It seems to me that objections to 1st trimester abortions require a belief in god (who invests the soul in the egg) - so a law against 1st trimester abortion is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

In the early days of the abortion debate, the popular limit was 20 weeks, given that a heartbeat could be detected then. Now, with modern technology we can do that at something like four weeks.

We're always going to have to draw the line somewhere. While current medical technology is helpful in the debate, this is largely about ethics, not raw science.

We should err on the side of caution. It stands to reason that as science advances, we will continue to expand our knowledge of the birth process, including the development of the unborn child.

Thus protection at the point of conception would seem to be the most ethical way of ensuring that all human life remains valued and protected in our society, and not subject to the whims of business, science or government.

-----

Did you notice that "belief in a deity" did not have to be invoked at all there?

Crying "separation of church and state" when confronted by divisive moral issues is not a solution to the world's problems.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #88 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
It seems to me that objections to 1st trimester abortions require a belief in god (who invests the soul in the egg) - so a law against 1st trimester abortion is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Umm...no...wrong answer...but thanks for playing.

post #89 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Why use the euphemism "pro-life?" Why not just be honest and admit that you want the government and not families to be the sole arbiter of whether pregnant women give birth?

Why not admit that women have engineered a protection racket that allows them the choice to parent before and even after birth while offering males no such Constitutional right or choice?

Quote:
And to bring this back to Alito, this is really what these Supreme Court fights are about : Whether you want the strict constructionist view of things, where our constitutional rights are read very narrowly, or the liberal view, where we take the 9th and 10th amendments seriously and don't try to give government more power over our personal lives at every opportunity.

At this point it has nothing to do with narrow versus wide. It has to do with a reading for one sex exclusively. You can't have a right to privacy, but only if you are a woman. Society needs to stop coddling one sex with regard to parenting choice while demanding the other sex assume the rule and even imprisoning them with contempt charges for not earning.

How can you really talk about rights when one sex can elect to abort and go to college and the other cannot even change their job without fear of a contempt charge sending them to "deadbeat debtor's" prison?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #90 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
No I understood, and even gave the example of Eisenhower nominating Warren. What I don't understand is how you or Nick can defend Bush's choice of Alito by claiming there's no precedent of nominating judges for ideological reasons. I honestly don't get it. Isn't that exactly what Bush has done? So are you saying the precedent Nick mentioned is a good thing or not?

Well of course they approve. But I doubt they had the same belief when Clinton was appointing judges.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #91 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why not admit that women have engineered a protection racket that allows them the choice to parent before and even after birth while offering males no such Constitutional right or choice?



At this point it has nothing to do with narrow versus wide. It has to do with a reading for one sex exclusively. You can't have a right to privacy, but only if you are a woman. Society needs to stop coddling one sex with regard to parenting choice while demanding the other sex assume the rule and even imprisoning them with contempt charges for not earning.

How can you really talk about rights when one sex can elect to abort and go to college and the other cannot even change their job without fear of a contempt charge sending them to "deadbeat debtor's" prison?

Nick

They're two separate subjects that should be argued separately.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #92 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
They're two separate subjects that should be argued separately.

Is that so?

Let's see...

1. Susie and John have an "encounter".
2. Susie becomes preggers w/John's "little one".
3. John desires a baby...NOT.
4. Susie does.
5. Johns insists Susie have an abortion.
6. Susie says, "You have no right!"
7. Susie gives birth to "Little John".
8. Susie demands financial remuneration for "Little Johns' care and well-being up to and including "Little John's" college education.
9. U.S. courts say, "Susie is right. John, pay up. You have no 'choice'."

Hmmm...maybe these issues are not as separate as it might appear at first.
post #93 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Because the core belief is that the pregnant woman is carrying nothing less than a human life.

A position derived from the support of that life is termed pro-life.

Of course it's a human life, but it still doesn't follow that the government should force women to give birth. You also must have a belief about the importance of the right of people to decide whether they want to become parents or not.
post #94 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course it's a human life, but it still doesn't follow that the government should force women to give birth. You also must have a belief about the importance of the right of people to decide whether they want to become parents or not.

Think about that for a minute.

It's a human life. Ending a human life is murder, irrespective of the circumstances.

The time to "decide" to become a parent is before the pregnancy, not afterward.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #95 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
They're two separate subjects that should be argued separately.

Actually they both are under the right to privacy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Ending a human life is murder, irrespective of the circumstances.

That's just not true. There are many reasons for ending a life that are not murder: Self-defense. The death penalty. My dad ended my mom's life a few years ago by removing her breathing machine. That wasn't murder. Probably the majority of cases where someone takes a life it isn't murder. The circumstances are absolutely critical.

Think about this: In what other situation are you required to keep another person alive? If I said "Frank, you are the only person in the world with my blood type, I need a 9-month long transfusion from you. If you decline you will kill me. Oh, and then you have to care for me and pay for everything for a few decades afterward." Should the government require you to do such a thing? There's no doubt that I'm a human being, in this case a fully-grown one. And yet no one would suggest passing such a law.
post #97 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Think about this: In what other situation are you required to keep another person alive? If I said "Frank, you are the only person in the world with my blood type, I need a 9-month long transfusion from you. If you decline you will kill me. Oh, and then you have to care for me and pay for everything for a few decades afterward." Should the government require you to do such a thing? There's no doubt that I'm a human being, in this case a fully-grown one. And yet no one would suggest passing such a law.

What an utterly crappy analogy. You (or perhaps someone else) tried this one before. Pure baloney. Stop it.
post #98 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's just not true. There are many reasons for ending a life that are not murder: Self-defense. The death penalty. My dad ended my mom's life a few years ago by removing her breathing machine. That wasn't murder. Probably the majority of cases where someone takes a life it isn't murder. The circumstances are absolutely critical.

Think about this: In what other situation are you required to keep another person alive? If I said "Frank, you are the only person in the world with my blood type, I need a 9-month long transfusion from you. If you decline you will kill me. Oh, and then you have to care for me and pay for everything for a few decades afterward." Should the government require you to do such a thing? There's no doubt that I'm a human being, in this case a fully-grown one. And yet no one would suggest passing such a law.

Yet they suggest passing it for one party with the exception of the nine month part. Isn't it amazing how one sex gets to fixate on the 40 weeks while the other is compelled to have no choice regarding their body for 21 years.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #99 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Ending a human life is murder, irrespective of the circumstances.

as BRussell mentioned, murder is not the same as taking a life in all circumstances. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of a life. So, some abortions in America at present are, by definition, not murder, even if one perceives the child to be a human with all rights.
post #100 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of a life. So, some abortions in America at present are, by definition, not murder, even if one perceives the child to be a human with all rights.

That is a very clever trick!
post #101 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is a very clever trick!

when i first read it i was kind of ticked off too. kind of interesting in terms of the commandments as well (despite common mistranslation "u shan't kill" its more accurately "u shan't murder"; but thats a separate issue altogether).

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Isn't it amazing how one sex gets to fixate on the 40 weeks while the other is compelled to have no choice regarding their body for 21 years.

i dont think its a fixation. much, or perhaps most (havent looked at polls), of the nation is not totally opposed to all abortions, while [presumably] much of the nation is opposed to allowing a man to not care for a child. thus, together much of the nation makes a bigger noise when talking about abortion, while the relatively smaller and less vocal ...pro-bachelor... crowd doesn't talk as much.
post #102 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's just not true. There are many reasons for ending a life that are not murder: Self-defense. The death penalty. My dad ended my mom's life a few years ago by removing her breathing machine. That wasn't murder. Probably the majority of cases where someone takes a life it isn't murder. The circumstances are absolutely critical.

Think about this: In what other situation are you required to keep another person alive? If I said "Frank, you are the only person in the world with my blood type, I need a 9-month long transfusion from you. If you decline you will kill me. Oh, and then you have to care for me and pay for everything for a few decades afterward." Should the government require you to do such a thing? There's no doubt that I'm a human being, in this case a fully-grown one. And yet no one would suggest passing such a law.


Killing someone in self-defense is still murder. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder, which is why many people believe it to be wrong. There are always differing circumstances, which is why our legal system confers different degrees of the act (first degree murder, etc.)

With regard to your parents, your Dad did not physically stop your mother from breathing, her body did that on its own. Abortion involves a conscious, pre-meditated decision to take a human life.

As for the analogy, if I was the one who was responsible for you needing that kind of care, today's courts would be quick to find me obligated to provide it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #103 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Did you notice that "belief in a deity" did not have to be invoked at all there?

Not when you have the handy logical fallicy handy in your arsenal!

There is a gray area, but there is also an early development stage when we know that the brain is not there. You are just arguing that the gray area exists, so we should also ignore the non-gray area.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #104 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
much, or perhaps most (havent looked at polls), of the nation is not totally opposed to all abortions, while [presumably] much of the nation is opposed to allowing a man to not care for a child.

Let me see if I have this right...

a. because a majority of the people believe that it is okay for a women to legally end a pregnancy, that is okay

and...

b. because the majority of the people believe that it is wrong for a (biological) father to shirk his father (financial) responsibility

then...

- if a women does not excercise her "right" under, then the man (under b) is required to support (financially) the child that results from their "union"?

Am I reading that right?
post #105 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Killing someone in self-defense is still murder. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder, which is why many people believe it to be wrong.

i disagree.
Quote:
From dictionary.com
murder:
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. [slang] Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous
3. A flock of crows

granted, self-defense is "very uncomfortable" and "hazardous". the top one (noted as "1") is probably the most commonly used definition.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Let me see if I have this right...

a. because a majority of the people believe that it is okay for a women to legally end a pregnancy, that is okay

and...

b. because the majority of the people believe that it is wrong for a (biological) father to shirk his father (financial) responsibility

then...

- if a women does not excercise her "right" under, the the man (under b) is required to support (financially) the child that results from their "union"?

Am I reading that right?

well, i was saying that i agree with it. i'm quite uncertain as to my own opinion of abortion, and even less certain of how i feel on the pro/anti-bachelor issue. i was fixated on nick's perception of the fixation. i was saying that the apparent fixation was more likely that many of those people agree on that issue and not on the other.
post #106 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
when i first read it i was kind of ticked off too. kind of interesting in terms of the commandments as well (despite common mistranslation "u shan't kill" its more accurately "u shan't murder"; but thats a separate issue altogether).

But I thought this wasn't about "religion"....
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #107 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Not when you have the handy logical fallicy handy in your arsenal!

There is a gray area, but there is also an early development stage when we know that the brain is not there. You are just arguing that the gray area exists, so we should also ignore the non-gray area.

Of course, we used to think the heartbeat was only there at 20 weeks. And that was wrong.

There was a time when nobody would have guessed the existence of DNA. Today we can put the human genome on an iPod.

There is every reason to believe we will continue to find that the human development process is much more complex than we think.

It makes eminently more sense to be prudent and cautious in setting the line and encourage ethical behaviour in society than sending a message that we will use science to find any loophole we think we can use.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #108 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Of course, we used to think the heartbeat was only there at 20 weeks. And that was wrong.

There was a time when nobody would have guessed the existence of DNA. Today we can put the human genome on an iPod.

There is every reason to believe we will continue to find that the human development process is much more complex than we think.

It makes eminently more sense to be prudent and cautious in setting the line and encourage ethical behaviour in society that sending a message that we will use science to find any loophole we think we can use.

You could use that argument to prohibit any and all drugs from being given to a pregnant woman (might hurt the fetus, you never understand things well enough to ensure that it does not!). Even if those drugs have been in use for years, the effect might be subtle.

Your argument is too restrictive, and if we applied it generally it would shut down all science and medicine.

Personally, I am in the more liberal camp wrt biological things. I am saving up to clone my body and transplant my head once they can re-attach nerves and such.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #109 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Your argument is too restrictive, and if we applied it generally it would shut down all science and medicine.

Of course that is not true. He didn't say anything at all about stopping science and medicine. On the contrary. You are seeing/reading/hearing only what you want to.

He is pointing out the fact that scientific, medical and technological advancements over the years have actually shown signs of life (heartbeat for example) occuring (much) earlier than previous thought, and this trend alone ought to give us pause before we allow the "termination of pregnancies".

Let's ask it this way. How would you feel if, suddenyl, through some scientific, medical or technological discovery we were able to detect that brain activity begins at week 1 (instead of where are currently able to detect it)? Would you simply say..."oops...our bad"?
post #110 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course that is not true. He didn't say anything at all about stopping science and medicine. On the contrary. You are seeing/reading/hearing only what you want to.

He is pointing out the fact that scientific, medical and technological advancements over the years have actually shown signs of life (heartbeat for example) occuring (much) earlier than previous thought, and this trend alone ought to give us pause before we allow the "termination of pregnancies".

Let's ask it this way. How would you feel if, suddenyl, through some scientific, medical or technological discovery we were able to detect that brain activity begins at week 1 (instead of where are currently able to detect it)? Would you simply say..."oops...our bad"?

It would be quite a trick to see brain activity before the brain actually exists.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #111 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
It would be quite a trick to see brain activity before the brain actually exists.

Nice duck. You oughta be a politician.

OK. I'll play. Week 3.
post #112 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
But I thought this wasn't about "religion"....

sorry, i didn't mean to introduce this PO thread to the concept of religion when it clearly hadn't been prior. i was merely bringing up what i thought was an interesting parenthetical. no harm intended.
post #113 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Yet they suggest passing it for one party with the exception of the nine month part. Isn't it amazing how one sex gets to fixate on the 40 weeks while the other is compelled to have no choice regarding their body for 21 years.

What would you suggest? That once the child is born, dads should have the right to not support their offspring? Child support has been in a joke up until about 10 years ago. Then they cracked down. I believe cracking down was the right thing to do.
post #114 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What would you suggest? That once the child is born, dads should have the right to not support their offspring? Child support has been in a joke up until about 10 years ago. Then they cracked down. I believe cracking down was the right thing to do.

Well (and I've asked this a couple time already without any response), what of the situation where "dad" doesn't want to be a dad?
post #115 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Killing someone in self-defense is still murder.

That's simply factually incorrect. If it's genuine self-defense, not only is it not murder, but it's not against the law at all. I don't know any statistics on this, but my guess is that the majority of cases in which a person kills another, it is not legally murder. If you're using Frank777's personal definition of murder, rather than a legal definition, perhaps you should provide that rather than speaking as if there's an objective basis for your statements.


Quote:
With regard to your parents, your Dad did not physically stop your mother from breathing, her body did that on its own. Abortion involves a conscious, pre-meditated decision to take a human life.

When someone is taken off a breathing machine, it is a conscious and premeditated decision to end that life. That individual is dependent on the machine, like a baby is dependent on the mother.
post #116 of 126
I question anti-abortion rights advocates' commitment to women.
post #117 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I question anti-abortion rights advocates' commitment to women.

I usually question people who have nothing constructive to add to a debate.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #118 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I usually question people who have nothing constructive to add to a debate.

I usually question people who make ironic statements without realizing it.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #119 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i dont think its a fixation. much, or perhaps most (havent looked at polls), of the nation is not totally opposed to all abortions, while [presumably] much of the nation is opposed to allowing a man to not care for a child. thus, together much of the nation makes a bigger noise when talking about abortion, while the relatively smaller and less vocal ...pro-bachelor... crowd doesn't talk as much.

It isn't a child until 40 weeks after the act. The father should have the right to declare his desire not to parent. If the mother doesn't want to go it alone, she has the full right to abort. If she doesn't want to abort she can choose to adopt. If she wants a child, then she has full awareness that she has full responsibility.

In NO WAY, does giving the father a right to choose, a right to do with his body as he wishes, a right to determine when and if he wants to parent infringe on the rights of a woman in any manner to do with her body as she desires.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What would you suggest? That once the child is born, dads should have the right to not support their offspring? Child support has been in a joke up until about 10 years ago. Then they cracked down. I believe cracking down was the right thing to do.

The reason it is a "joke" is because not allowing someone to exercise their rights ends up with a bad result no matter what you do. Criminalizing a bunch of men for not wanting to be dad's is no better than criminalizing someone for wanting to smoke some pot. All the nonsense that arises around it, even when it is somewhat effective ends up looking like a joke because that is what forcing someone to be a criminal for exercising their rights looks like.

As for it being their offspring, I absolutely support the rights of those men not to have to subject their bodies to government control in the name of a child. If it is wrong to do to women because some parties consider the inborn baby a child, then it is wrong to do to men because some parties consider the born child their obligation.

The child doesn't belong to the men. When the government can take what is supposed to be "yours" and is your obligation, and tell you that it is criminal to speak to or see "your child" during certain hours or days, then it is not yours. When they can, without good cause deny you custody or control of your own child, then it is not yours, it is theirs. They can then take their child to make demands upon your body.

I'm ranting, but the point is calling it YOURS in no manner means that it truly belongs to you. If something truly belongs to you, then the government should not be able to take it. Worse still they should not be able to take it and then control your body as "reward" for controlling and taking it.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › No Filibuster for you!