So What Are Your Views?

[hakr100]

It is a fetus only when considered for abortion. It is manslaughter if the woman wants the "fetus" and loses it due to an accident. Since a "fetus" is not considered a "child" the name must be changed to prosecute the offender in court. Otherwise there would be no "manslaughter" or "murder" charge.

It is medically a fetus, a mammal under development in the womb before birth. Death of a fetus because of an auto accident became "manslaughter" in some cases in order to punish more severely those who DUI. Many of those who oppose choice for women picked up on using the word "child" for fetus because they wanted to supercharge feelings on these matters.

 

[mpw]

...I think it'd be pretty selfish for either parent to want the child if they know it's not going to have its basic needs fulfilled...

That sounds like you'd actually advocate the woman have an unwanted abortion should their partner walk!

...Both genders have "burdens." One of them for women is childbirth and being responsible with it. If there are extenuating circumstances, like rape, the rapist isn't exactly "getting away" either.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here; what are the mans 'burdens' in this context? and I've no idea what you mean about the rapist?!

 

[LiamSHepard]

That sounds like you'd actually advocate the woman have an unwanted abortion should their partner walk!


I'm really not sure what you're getting at here; what are the mans 'burdens' in this context? and I've no idea what you mean about the rapist?!

Well the burdens would be helping the woman cope with her decision whether he agreed to it or not. Both parents will feel responsible for the "fetus."
During pregnancy, "Whatever the duration," men are relied upon to provide financial and emotional support. This also includes making extra trips to the store and accepting ridiculous requests.

My wife happens to be pregnant and we have a daughter, so I can speak from experience what role men play during pregnancy. I have to say it is much larger than you give credit.

Prior to my marriage and children, I dated several women who had previous abortions. Guilt spills out in very roundabout odd forms. That would be why all the ones I knew are still single.

To me a pregnancy like marriage requires commitment. If the person contemplating an abortion cannot accept the level of commitment and resourcefulness required to make it work, plenty of families would love to adopt. Those of us that did decide to start families can all agree it takes a large amount of time and effort to facilitate a family. There are always unforeseen expenses that arise to name one thing. It also requires constant selfless actions which some may not be able to accept.

 

[smacky]

That sounds like you'd actually advocate the woman have an unwanted abortion should their partner walk!

Then sounds like you advocate the woman keeping the baby if the father doesn't want it and/or can not support it. Doesn't sound any better than raising the child in a poor environment.


I'm really not sure what you're getting at here; what are the mans 'burdens' in this context? and I've no idea what you mean about the rapist?!
You think it's all fun and games during a pregnancy for a man? We're not even talking whose burden is bigger, but you're saying he doesn't have a responsibility during and after the pregnancy? That it doesn't take a toll on him?

My main point is it's the woman that has to deal with the pregnancy mostly. It's her body. If she wants it or doesn't want it, it's her choice. If the father, however, wants it and she doesn't, she has the final say. If he doesn't want it, but she does, again, she has the final say. But he should have the option of not having to deal with the child if there is a way to resolve the problem. The problem being split on the decision, not the actual baby. Why should he have to suffer to support it if he can not or does not want to?

.....

 

[OfTheDamned]

Some touchy subjects in here for some people, but here goes

Abortion: Morally, I am against it. Politically, I don't think the federal government has any right to tell someone what they can or can't do to their own body. I think it should be left up to the individual states. If one wishes to keep in legal by a majority vote and another does not, then some people will have to travel. The options should be discussed and adoption should be promoted as an option for the mother. I do believe that the spouse should have some say in the matter, but it ultimately is the woman's decision to make.

Death Penalty: I am in favor of it when people are committing acts of murder, rape, child molestation or owning an iPhone. The evidence should be irrefutable though.

Gun Control: Criminals who want guns will get guns no matter how many laws people try to set in place to stop it. I'm in favor of background checks, but believe that people should have the right to bare arms and carry concealed in all 50 states. Ridiculous feel good laws like the famed Brady Bill accomplish nothing and should be avoided at all costs. I appose a national registry as it only provides a list for them to come collect guns when they want to.

Immigration: Through normal legal channels is a great thing. We need more hard working people that want to be here.

Borders: Fences and sentry towers with guns. People entering the country illegally should be viewed as an invading force by our border patrol and military.

Illegal Immigrants: Captured and deported if found to be nonviolent. The violent ones should be deported to the middle of the pacific ocean with a bucket of chum and a life vest.

Taxes: Fair tax, if you know then you would agree with me. If you don't know it then you should learn about it. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Politicians: In many ways I think it should be like jury duty and almost everyone should have to serve. Unlike jury duty, I think that an IQ test and psych evaluation should be administered to each possible candidate. Once their time is up, their constituents should be able to vote to keep them in or send them packing. This way, if someone is truly doing a great job they can continue to do it. As it stands now, they need term limits. I don't have a problem with career politicians as long as they aren't sitting in the same seat accomplishing nothing. If they want to jump to a different part of government that is fine.

 

[hakr100]

Some touchy subjects in here for some people, but here goes

Abortion: Morally, I am against it. Politically, I don't think the federal government has any right to tell someone what they can or can't do to their own body. I think it should be left up to the individual states. If one wishes to keep in legal by a majority vote and another does not, then some people will have to travel. The options should be discussed and adoption should be promoted as an option for the mother. I do believe that the spouse should have some say in the matter, but it ultimately is the woman's decision to make.

If you don't think the federal government has any right to tell someone what he/she can do with his/her body, then why do you think individual states do?

 

[smacky]

If you don't think the federal government has any right to tell someone what he/she can do with his/her body, then why do you think individual states do?

This reminds me of that one weirdo that got a sex change to a male and still got pregnant.

To me it's like getting your body pierced. Expression of self? It's just sad you can do weird shit like this. That people's minds wander in to that part of the "what-if" section.



I say for abortions, if they both can't say they want it, ****ing kill it. When you give people options like this, they tend to abuse it. Either that or sterilize both parties after the second abortion.

 

[HumanMachine]

Abortion: Varies, I'm on the fence here. I know a woman who six months to six months getting an abortion as an "out" and of course, some women are accosted and forcibly impregnated. Each situation should be scrutinized. There should be no outs, but there shouldn't be a penalty for responsible thought

Death Penalty: Expensive to keep em, expensive to kill em. Can't win either way. Some who deserve death live, and some who die deserved life. I'd say get rid of them only to see if it saved money in the long run.

Gun Control: Guns don't kill people, people who don't use them responsibly kill people. That said. There is no reason for someone to own an USAS or a weapon of high destruction, There's a logical limit here, and excess is often taken in strides here.

Immigration: Come here legally, assimilate, learn the language and don't expect the government to help you while you spit on it behind its back. However, we can't and shouldn't punish those already here. I know personally I was born to Illegal parents. They are legal now. I'm Legal of course, work for a living, went to college, the whole deal. There are some people out there that would see me stripped of my citizenship because of the first technicality. I can't support this, I must above all, defend myself. Immigration can take decades, streamline it. Make the system work.

Borders: Tell me how this can be upheld and I'll call you a liar.

Illegal Immigrants: Gotta make them somewhat productive, they sometimes do the jobs that I don't want to do. I'm not about to penalize a people for coming here to seek a better opportunity for their lives. Employers should be held to a higher standard. Work Visas. Get them. Make the government able to assist this. Lessen the red tape

Taxes: Not an expert enough in this to comment. I know I pay my dues. Current tax system puts too much on the middle class. Upper class needs to be put on the chopping block more, no more of this "donate to a political party and I'll write it off" It definitely seems like it happens all too often.... But I can't really comment here. No bail outs, let the economy fold. At least a system will recover from it instead of keeping this wounded chicken going for another 20 years.

Politicians: No more electorals. Unlimited terms for superior performances. Candidates that don't come from the same old money that this country wanted to move away from in the first place. Capable people should be able to run just as well as those with "investments" in their future. Not saying they should win, but the illusion of choice goes a long way to making people realize that politics should go beyond parties.

 

[BurntPork]

I'll Play... all my views come down to natural law. If you infringe upon it you are no longer protected by it.(American perspective) Read a little about Cicero for more info.Marcus Tullius Cicero, Who Gave Natural Law to the Modern World | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Abortion:Not the fed's business therefore states right issue. Personal: A human brain needs blood to provide o2 for proper operation. At this point it is a sentient being and protected under the natural right to life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

Death Penalty: If you are proven to have infringe upon another's right to life you forfeit your own in the same manner.

Gun Control: The right to protect your self is a basic right. Protecting your life and fruits of your labor from whatever group that wishes to usurp it is fundamental.

Immigration: All for it as long as it's within the proper channels. The red tape needs to be trimmed however. Bureaucracy is a bad word for a reason.

Borders: Lock 'em down. A nation without borders has no sovereignty. Have a reciprocative policy towards any border we share.

Illegal Immigrants: Start kicking them out or change the law. Suspend business licences of all employers that hire illegal help. Hold any politicians feet to the fire that supports amnesty as an avenue for votes or cheap labor. (Both parties are at fault here)

Taxes: Consumption tax... the only true "fair tax"

Politicians: Term limits. Make them follow the same rule that they set for us.

Too many people have a very myopic view of the political spectrum. It is not linear. Folks need to look at it in 3d

 

[hakr100]

I



Abortion:Not the fed's business therefore states right issue.

Too many people have a very myopic view of the political spectrum. It is not linear. Folks need to look at it in 3d

Abortion is not the state's issue, either.

And the items you've added to that tired old chart are not accurate.
Progressive are not as far left as you depict them, and neo-cons are not that far right, except, perhaps in regard to foreign affairs.

Libertarians need their own chart. To me, they are sort of like Republicans who want even less responsibility.

 

[BurntPork]

Abortion is not the state's issue, either. I was speaking as enumerated in the US Constitution.

And the items you've added to that tired old chart are not accurate.
Progressive are not as far left as you depict them, and neo-cons are not that far right, except, perhaps in regard to foreign affairs. Statist is Statist no matter your orientation.

Libertarians need their own chart. To me, they are sort of like Republicans who want even less Government.

Fixed it for ya

 

[hakr100]

Fixed it for ya

No, you didn't. What you did was change another poster's post. That really should not be allowed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government or the states the right to restrict abortion. Yeah, I understand the document and its clauses, even the one that states that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people. I think construing that clause as meaning the states can regulate everything else is an overstepping of intent. The right to obtain a safe abortion is something that should be reserved to "the people."

 

[BurntPork]

No, you didn't. What you did was change another poster's post. That really should not be allowed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government or the states the right to restrict abortion. Yeah, I understand the document and its clauses, even the one that states that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people. I think construing that clause as meaning the states can regulate everything else is an overstepping of intent. The right to obtain a safe abortion is something that should be reserved to "the people."

That document is the Bill of Rights... 10th amendment to be exact.

As far as "the people" which "people" are we talking about?

 

[mpw]

Then sounds like you advocate the woman keeping the baby if the father doesn't want it and/or can not support it. Doesn't sound any better than raising the child in a poor environment...

Not quite; I advocate that she she have the choice. Raising a child in non-ideal financial circumstances isn't, ideal, but that's no reason to advocate an unwanted abortion, IMO.

...You think it's all fun and games during a pregnancy for a man? We're not even talking whose burden is bigger, but you're saying he doesn't have a responsibility during and after the pregnancy? That it doesn't take a toll on him?...

You ask those questions like I've said something that would suggest I do think any of those things, when I don't think I have.

You however are advocating some of those things by saying that if a man doesn't want a child then he should be allowed to walk away.

...Why should he have to suffer to support it if he can not or does not want to?

Responsibility?

You've still not made clear your comment on rapists btw??

 

[mpw]

...I say for abortions, if they both can't say they want it, ****ing kill it...

That's one of the most stupid ideas I've heard in a long time; stupid, pathetic and worrying.

 

[OfTheDamned]

If you don't think the federal government has any right to tell someone what he/she can do with his/her body, then why do you think individual states do?

I'm not saying that the states have that right, but I do believe it should be left up to the people in that state to determine if it is legal in that state. I think it should be that way for a lot of things like abortion, marijuana, gambling, prostitution for examples. Allow them to decide what happens where they live.

Libertarians need their own chart. To me, they are sort of like Republicans who want even less responsibility.

There are all types of people in each party. Some libertarians are just disheartened republicans, but real libertarians just want less federal control over our country. Most libertarians believe that just about everything should be decided and run at a state level and that the federal government has been allowed to take too much power in the US. The federal government has it's place, but with the amount of power they have taken, and we have allowed, they are basically running "the people" over.

This is one of the reasons I think the jury system for federal representatives could work. If the balance of power was shifted back to where it should be, then our local and state officials would be the ones we would be paying proper attention to.

 

[smacky]

That's one of the most stupid ideas I've heard in a long time; stupid, pathetic and worrying.

You are such a great debater. Such ethics and public speaking skills.

One thing I get out of this, good thing you're not in charge.

I mentioned rapists in the case of a woman being raped and wanting an abortion. I'm not going back to clarify that. You go back, with this new knowledge I've bestowed upon you, and figure it out.

 

[mpw]

...I mentioned rapists in the case of a woman being raped and wanting an abortion. I'm not going back to clarify that...

Well I guess your favoured debating style, where you choose not to clarify, is so much better

So based on the opinions you've stated you'd have a pregnancy aborted even if the woman wanted to have the baby, where the father, possibly a rapist, possibly simply absent, doesn't want/take responsibility for the child.

Well if you're looking to be in charge, I'm not convinced you're going to get the female vote with such views; but at least you might get the irresponsible male vote.

 

[smacky]

Well I guess your favoured debating style, where you choose not to clarify, is so much better

So based on the opinions you've stated you'd have a pregnancy aborted even if the woman wanted to have the baby, where the father, possibly a rapist, possibly simply absent, doesn't want/take responsibility for the child.

Well if you're looking to be in charge, I'm not convinced you're going to get the female vote with such views; but at least you might get the irresponsible male vote.

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.

The choice is still with the woman. If she thinks she can support it well without the father, go for it. It's not fair that many men are trapped in to supporting the child when there is an option, like abortion, to absolve both parties from future complications. No one is forcing the woman to abort the child. You're assuming every woman out there can't support herself or a child without a man or shouldn't.

 

[mpw]

...You're assuming every woman out there can't support herself or a child without a man or shouldn't.

I'm making absolutely no such assumption, and only a complete idiot could take that from what I've posted...

...The whore can't be running in everytime she gets knocked up...

...If she wants it or doesn't want it, it's her choice. If the father, however, wants it and she doesn't, she has the final say...

...It shouldn't be a one-sided decision...

...If she wants it or doesn't want it, it's her choice. If the father, however, wants it and she doesn't, she has the final say...

If she wants it and he doesn't, he can walk out. If he can't afford it and there is a solution to remedy the issue and you still pick the "wrong" one for your situation, then you deal with it.

...Couple this with "fines and penalties" I suggested earlier, and it should deter abortions...

...I say for abortions, if they both can't say they want it, ****ing kill it...

...If there are extenuating circumstances, like rape, the rapist isn't exactly "getting away" either...

...I mentioned rapists in the case of a woman being raped and wanting an abortion. I'm not going back to clarify that. You go back, with this new knowledge I've bestowed upon you, and figure it out...

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious...

Yeah, it's all about my atrocious comprehension, 'cause you're as consistent and clear as mud.

 

[OfTheDamned]

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.

The choice is still with the woman. If she thinks she can support it well without the father, go for it. It's not fair that many men are trapped in to supporting the child when there is an option, like abortion, to absolve both parties from future complications. No one is forcing the woman to abort the child. You're assuming every woman out there can't support herself or a child without a man or shouldn't.

I see what you are saying smacky, but you have to keep in mind that it takes 2 to tango. If a guy or a girl don't want to have children then they need to take the proper precautions to make sure that does not happen. There are so many forms of birth control out there that can prevent a pregnancy from ever happening in the first place. There are condoms for both men and women, spermicides, a diaphragm, the sponge, the pill, depo-provera, lunelle, the ring, the patch, iud and even the morning after pill. The fact that so many girls get pregnant when they don't want to absolutely blows my mind. The fact that most of these kids aren't walking STDs actually blows my mind too.

Really though, if the girl or guy doesn't want to have kids then they should be doing everything they can to prevent it or simply not having sex at all. If the guy doesn't want it and the girl does, then it is his burden to bare as well. "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

 

[smacky]

I'm making absolutely no such assumption, and only a complete idiot could take that from what I've posted...













Yeah, it's all about my atrocious comprehension, 'cause you're as consistent and clear as mud.

So you've got all my points bulleted, what's so hard to understand? I'm consistent in my general belief that a child should not be brought into this world if its parents can not support it. All my bullet points support it. They also support policies put in place the prevent people from abusing the system and merely using abortions in place of protection and common sense. Fining couples or women that visit abortion clinics like Wal-Mart should be punished.

Remember I mentioned "burdens?" The "burden" or responsibility women have being the child-bearers? It would be responsible for the man to take precautionary measures to prevent the woman from getting pregnant, but ultimately, it's the woman's responsibility. She has control over who she lets "in." I mentioned rape? When the unfortunate scenario where she doesn't have control of who she lets in. Do you note the difference between the former and the latter? Intentional, unintentional. The latter is reasonable grounds for an abortion with not "penalty." It was out of her control. But if it's because you sleep around, why should you not be penalized?

 

[mpw]

So you've got all my points bulleted, what's so hard to understand? I'm consistent in my general belief that a child should not be brought into this world if its parents can not support it. All my bullet points support it. They also support policies put in place the prevent people from abusing the system and merely using abortions in place of protection and common sense.

Some of you points point to your belief that the poor shouldn't pro-create, and while I find that kinda hurtful and hateful I suppose there is at least a kind of economic logic to your argument.

But many of your points have nothing to do with finance; you talk about where the man doesn't want the child, "...then ****ing kill it..."; you say rapists "...aren't getting away..." with regards abortion of their child, but you refuse to clarify what you meant; you say that a man should have an equal vote in the decision to abort, but that his vote counts for nothing.

Nobody gets pregnant alone, the responsibility is shared and I don't think that a man should be absolved of that responsibility simply because he chooses to be. Think it through smacky, do you think it'd be okay to walk away from a mother with a child aged 1year old, and not expect the man to provide any financial assistance? because there's no difference in what you advocating, except that you're 'forcing' a mother to either accept sole responsibility or to abort what could be a perfectly viable and wanted child on economic grounds that she may not have foreseen.

 

[mpw]

...ultimately, it's the woman's responsibility...

I disagree, I think the responsibility for the consequences of consensual sex should be shared by both parties.

The fact that there are men walking around with views like yours I find genuinely pathetic.

...Do you note the difference between the former and the latter? Intentional, unintentional. The latter is reasonable grounds for an abortion with not "penalty."...

Of course I see the difference smacky, you ask the question like I've said something that would make you doubt that??

Is the above supposed to explain you strange post about rapists not getting away with something? I still don't see what you mean in that regard.

I also find it quite hard to understand how on earth you'd ever think your 'system' would be in anyway workable; requiring women to justify the requests for abortion based on promiscuity and or consensual nature of intercourse. Would they be required to prove that they'd been raped to avoid your accusation of being a whore?

 

[gallandof]

I'd like to start off by saying I DO NOT watch the news read newspapers anything like that I feel they are filled propaganda and fud that does more harm than good.

Abortion: Who am I to say wether or not you can have an abortion? it is your life choice. I would say that some form of education or something like that should be recomended before hand so people can realize the potential dangers etc...


Death Penalty: This is very dependent on the crime and the individual in my eyes. or we should go all medieval and have public executions (sarcasm)


Gun Control: stop producing weapons outside of military use, and at that point have very strict policy. one of the biggest arguments ive seen in support of guns are self protection, if the criminal cant get a gun why do you need one? There has got to be a way to somehow cease gun production, and if not its a sad sad day in which a country rely on guns.


Immigration & Borders: Immigration should be allowed as long as the individual puts forth the effort to become a citizen.
Border control- there should bge some form of control but not as extreme as a fence or a wall, I cant help but think of the Iron Curtain when I hear mention of a fence or wall for our border.


Illegal Immigrants: if they are here illegally they should be given ONE WEEK and at the end of that week they must pass a stricter immigration test than those who went through the full process. if failed then they must head back to where ever they are from at the expense of their government.



Taxes: scaling tax, so those who have trouble making money due to physical or mental dissabilities dont have to pay the same % as those who are rich. then those who are rich pay more. ex: person A make 10k a year before tax. they pay 1% Person B make 10mill a year, they pay closer to 15%


Politicians: term limits, also they shouldnt be able to choose who their vice presidents etc... are.


NEW TOPIC

Legalization of drugs- any form of synthetic drug (currently illegal) should stay illegal. Natural drugs such as marijuana and mushrooms should be legallized given they have no long term side effects, but under strict control, similar to tobacco and alcohol.