- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 1,960
- Location
- at the computer
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Read post 313 and you will see.What kind of "sick" are you referring to?
Read post 313 and you will see.What kind of "sick" are you referring to?
I go back to the fact that my taxes are used toward the military and i do not support anything they do. Nothing. Yet i pay that and don't whine.
Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health and Reproductive Systems?
Comparing military and welfare programs is not workable.
She's entitled to the opinion, of course, but "justified" is another argument.
Like which ones?
Then that's something other than regarding the pregnancy, the process happening in their bodies, negatively.
The general regard of reproduction as a negative is an aberration. There's certainly no species where it's the norm.
Sure it is. I don't want to waste money on the repugnant military. Someone else does not want to pay for abortion. It is about paying for something you don't want to without whining.Comparing military and welfare programs is not workable.
Equality demands that all voters have an equal say in all maters of public policy regardles of sex.
Well it is, actually. I am a Buddhist. I don't approve of war, yet my taxes and yours are used to kill people. I don't support it, but I pay my taxes. Other religions and my government never asked me if I was OK with that. I'm expected to pay for the U.S. military in the ME. I pay, while at the same time I am religiously opposed.
Sure it is. I don't want to waste money on the repugnant military. Someone else does not want to pay for abortion. It is about paying for something you don't want to without whining.
The question there has more to do with if the government has the right to tax and decide where the funds are going. The problem with her comparison is basically how welfare and how the military work and what is there overall purpose and function. In that way they are not comparable.
The question there has more to do with if the government has the right to tax and decide where the funds are going. The problem with her comparison is basically how welfare and how the military work and what is there overall purpose and function. In that way they are not comparable.
You definitely don't believe in egalitarianism, that's for sure.
In general: pro-life to me isn't always about 'controlling the women' - I can see it in some views that it's not at all trying to contorl. But the views of many pro-life males on this forum and not on this forum: that is EXACTLY what it means *to them* and *their views* - to them it IS about control. They hold that view purely as an extension of what they deem to be 'just gender bias'
It's a thin line - quite fuzzy at times - between those who are being respectful of women and our individuality VS the others who hold no respect for us as individuals.
My position has always been no matter what your political views are if you are a man with a half brain, you just let women have this one and do what they want if you agree with it or not. Some things just arent worth fighting women over and this is one of them. Give it up guys. Just give it up.
You make a wrong assumption. Risky stated clearly what I meant and in fact said in response to another poster. I object to my taxes paying even a dime toward anything military. I do not object to paying for abortions. I pay for both and do not whine about the taxes that go toward military expenditures.
I once thought like this too... and even voiced that opinion to my wife.
it didn't go over very well at all... she chewed my ass.
That is your opinion and you agree with 44% of the population and 50% are pro choice with 6% not having an opinion. So it's almost an even split why should there be a change in the law as it stands? Did you know that abortion was legal in the early US and was stopped in about 1862 because of the danger to women and the fetus was not even part of that debate. To many women at the time were being damaged by the procedure.To me it has to do with defending children.
I find the mere accusation that I'm trying to control women to be profoundly arrogant, because the accuser assumes I'm primarily concerned about them.
A pregnant women is not an individual, there's another person inside her.
Well, they are very much the same in that my moral standards are such that I do not support killing people in the ME. I most certainly never supported our presence in Iraq and I still do not support our presence there. My tax money has been used to kill people, wound people, destroy a nation, cause misery and despair. We can agree or disagree about the US presence in the ME, but what we cannot disagree on is that my tax money helped make it possible. I paid and am paying for the continued misery and pain that is life in Iraq. You cannot disagree that I am paying for it. I have no choice. You must agree to that as well.
It is not when you consider what that was a reply to. Our taxes pay for a lot of things that we like or dislike. It is a perfect comparison. You don't need to defend the military. They could be picking grapes and I would not agree with the tax for it. But I pay and don't whine like the poster was whining about paying for abortions. It is exactly the same.Taxes has always been a messy business and I'm not going to try to defend actions of the military or how taxes are levied and decided to be used as I strongly disagree with both, however, like I said for the reasons I put out the comparison you tried to throw out there is lack luster.
It is not when you consider what that was a reply to. Our taxes pay for a lot of things that we like or dislike. It is a perfect comparison. You don't need to defend the military. They could be picking grapes and I would not agree with the tax for it. But I pay and don't whine like the poster was whining about paying for abortions. It is exactly the same.
There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is a ****ing comparison about paying for something you don't want to. Come down from your defending the military high horse. I could have said its the same as someone without children paying local school taxes. Is that better suited to your sensitivity about military. For Christ's sake give it up already.If you really must know I agree with funding the military and find it beyond stupid to sit back and say you are unwilling to do it. Still, yes, I disagree with how the military is used these days and how much they get. But the whole death thing is just part of the idea really. These men and women are more or less paid to kill for us and personally I have no problem with it if it is protect our rights and liberties as a people and not further some stupid interest that some politician thinks is important.
Either way, this is kind of the whole purpose of government, so really there is more wrong with her argument than just what I said.
That is your opinion and you agree with 44% of the population and 50% are pro choice with 6% not having an opinion. So it's almost an even split why should there be a change in the law as it stands? Did you know that abortion was legal in the early US and was stopped in about 1862 because of the danger to women and the fetus was not even part of that debate. To many women at the time were being damaged by the procedure.
Then all of a sudden in 1973 everyone is concerned about the fetus. Fancy that,
Only when those issues conflict with a child's safety and right to live.
There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is a ****ing comparison about paying for something you don't want to. Come down from your defending the military high horse. I could have said its the same as someone without children paying local school taxes. Is that better suited to your sensitivity about military. For Christ's sake give it up already.