Put my face in place of Mr. Obama's and that's how I'm feeling right now about him and the rest of the "leadership" of my party.
Oh I am sure there are plenty of doctors, lawyers, and MBA's who are tea baggers - stupidity knows no bounds. In order to be a tea partier you really have to be kind of living in a delusional reality. Same holds true for a left-wing socialist by the way. Just two sides of warped reality really. Narrow-mindedness comes in my forms. I've met quite a few Tea Baggers, even ones that are CEO's and quite successful - very intelligent, witty, and I completely enjoy their company. But they are morons when it comes to politics. It's not that their positions aren't rationale - they are....but they are also ridiculous in the face of undistorted facts. If you don't question what you think that you are doomed to have moronic pathways of thought. That's pretty much true across the political spectrum and life in general. I'm not talking IQ here. And I am not stereotyping. Just as anyone who drives without a seatbelt is a moron and that's not stereotyping. And nice job being a hypocrite. If you are going to cry about being stereotyped, than why go off and stereotype everyone in advertising? Let's not even address the fact that your disdain of ad execs probably stems from a liberal bias within the field. Oh, and I know it's Lewis Lloyd and have always known. There's a reason my moniker is the way it is.
Alright, for those of you who believe in Freedom of Choice for women, I bring you a new conundrum. If you believe in abortion, do you also believe in child support in cases of unplanned pregnancies? Scenario: Male A impregnates Female B for whatever reason: no condom, she claimed she was on birth control, etc. Situation: Male A has no decision making power on Female B on whether or not she gets an abortion. Male A is pro-abortion in this situation because he feels like he's not ready in his life to have a baby. Female B is a no-go on abortion even though it was a legal choice that she could have made. Question: Should he still have to pay for child support in a situation that was out of his control? I mean she could have easily gotten an abortion even if he wanted to keep the child so shouldn't he be able to go on record as being pro-abortion and get out of paying child support?
Yes, the man should be responsible. I believe that it's the woman's right whether to abort or not because she's the one who will carry the child. It's her body so she should decide. Unless Male A was raped, I don't see how this is a conundrum.
I don't get this arguement. In the majority of cases, both the man and the woman voluntarily chose to have sex, yet it's only the woman's choice to decide whether to keep the baby or not. The man has no choice in the matter. I can see where the woman obviously has more at stake in the matter in the short term, but in the long term it is life changing for both parties. So is it fair for the man. No it's not. Suck it up, life ain't fair. Not to say that I wouldn't have some sympathy for the man, but I certainly wouldn't respect anyone who doesn't take care of thier children, nor do I want to live in a society where men don't take responsibility for thier actions. That's an ongoing daily decision. In that regard though, I view women a little bit differently. I prefer to live in a society where women don't have abortions, and I do have sympathy for women who face that decision. I don't see it as a simple decision at all, nor does the decision definitely define what kind of person you are. It's a one time decision, that you may regret, may accept, and may be in denial about. It something you may feel right about, may struggle to forgive yourself about, but regardless, you don't need anyone elses judgement. Along those same lines, it is difficult to think that someone else can make that decision for you, for your body...even though it is easy for someone to say I have no right to murder my neighbor.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. If the woman decides to have the kid, hell ya he is responsible. They both decided to have unprotected sex so both are responsible for their "mistake". But if the woman decides to have an abortion, then the man is free of paying child support. Now if the man wants to keep it and the woman wants to abort, then that's another can of worms. Initially, it seems both have a 50/50 right to the choice of abortion. However, as you pointed out, that is for long-term. For short-term, it is almost 100% the woman's call. So in the overall picture, wouldn't you say the woman has the choice due to her combined long and short-term stake? It's not a true 50/50. In the end, I also "prefer" to live in a society where women don't have the need/desire to get an abortion. I also "prefer" a society where 95% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the population. I "prefer" a lot of things but so is the world.
Isnt overpopulation this biggest problem facing the world( long term )? So by all means abort away. Another thing, I loveeeeeee how China handles their baby situation. First baby is free, second baby you get taxed on, third even more so and so on and so on( you know so poor people dont have a **** load of kids). ANOTHER thing, if you are on welfare, you NEED to be on birth control, theres no excuse for craping out kids left and right into poverty. Yes I know some of you will say some of the brightest and most successful people have come from situations like that alot, but the majority are **** ups and people who **** up society. /rant
I think that was the point illustrated. It's not anywhere near 50/50, as the woman has all the choice and the man has none. It is not fair. It could be fair if we gave the father the right to disown his child, however, our society has no respect for that. Additionally, it is not an identical choice as an abortion as it would likely be a decision that can be reversed at a later date. It's more in line if a woman decides to give her child up for adoption. To me, even though the point doesn't 'win an arguement' or is enough to really change the way things are, it's valid and deserves some merit. In general, I think that's often what's lacking in a debate...recognition of valid arguements against your case. It's seems there is a fear that your case has to be black and white...whent the reality is that that is rarely the case.
Good points. In an ideal world, there would be an almighty wise never-wrong council that would decide for you since things aren't black and white. But you have to have something robust enough to work in our imperfect society. I don't see how both can decide, it'll be deadlocked. So just like how majority vote works, I believe the woman has a more (can't quantify 'more') say and, hence, gets to decide. Again, I agree with you and truly do wish society was at a point that abortions were not even needed.
You could also require by law that anyone born with a birth defect that effect there ablity to contribute to society be immediately terminated. Why we're at it, we should just put the elderly out of thier misery instead having them be such a huge burden on the medical system and society in general. We could be a race of super humans!
LOL, I actually read an article about this the other day, it noted that 1 billion is the ideal capacity for planet earth, we are 5 billion beyond that number. Don't worry planet earth will take care of our overpopulation + its very likely we'll help out as well.
Do you have a link to the article? I would be interested in seeing what assumptions they made to come to the conclusion that 1 billion is the ideal number.
Me too. I read the world can support up to 45 billion giving the same rate of agri-technology. There were proportionately more people starving in 1804 (1 billionth people milestone) than there is today. My view on world population
It would be nice if we could advance agricultual science enough to grow food where it normally wouldn't grow. Say, Antartica.
Its not fair to begin with since women are the ones who are pregnant. The man contributes sperm but it is the women who has to biologically do the rest of the work.
Except I don't subscribe to any political philosophy. I am not a democrat. I have voted for Republicans. I make my decisions not based on philosophy but on a long term approach based on data. I recognize that what I feel is not always what is the correct course and there are some very tough decisions at times. But my criticism of the tea party folks I meet is that their views are basedon a superficial understanding of the issues and they are not open to considering other evidence. That is what makes them morons.
I brought up the point really to show that there is no true black and white to some polarizing issues and I'm glad you saw that. People are so set in their beliefs sometimes that they tend to forget that there are alternate views with merit. I'm Pro-choice, but I think at the same time, there is merit to a Pro-life viewpoint as well. I just don't see how people can juxtapose the ideas of Pro-choice with Child Support so easily. From a purely financial perspective, a woman carries all the clout while the man can pathetically watch from the sideline. I'm in complete agreement that biologically the woman should have the decision in her hands, but I just don't see how a chance encounter/mistake should lead to 18 years of fiscal responsibility when a "choice" was always available. If you can't afford the child, then put it up for adoption or don't have the child at all in my opinion. Then again it is purely an opinion based on no factual data whatsoever.
It's not 50/50 because women bear all the risk. People can change their minds, and it's usually the woman left holding the bag...er baby. Even if it was 50/50, Solomon has some words for you. All or nothing. I think major is a moderate conservative who knows or reads too much.
