Political Matrix

[Bulldog]

I'm glad to see that everyone here now agrees that it is inappropriate for Government to be involved in human reproduction - I love this board.

[Daverz]

First, I want to reiterate a point, which is the central one for me.  Bringing a pregnancy to term is not a trivial thing, though many people seem to think so,  and it is a health issue.  Why single it out among many health issues that may be caused by behavior?

Well, you tried to turn it on its head, but it didn't work.  All but the last three are perfect examples of irresponsible reasons.  Your assertion that this would benefit the taxpayer is based on wishful thinking and nothing more.  How would "Want no (more) children"

Setting aside the taxpayers for a moment, I don't want people who don't want children adding more fucked up children to the world.  I don't want to force them to get that abortion, but wouldn't want to put barriers in their way, either. 

We can make it a tax writeoff rather than a direct benefit.  Sounds better to me than people getting to write their dependents off on their taxes.  Right now I pay for someone elses brat to take up breathing space.

[Agree on the Freakonomics comments.  It was just an example of a recent variant of the utilitarian argument from some libertarians].

  I always find it amusing when people want the use of public funds without regulation.

The regulation has to make some sense.  An inquisition about whether an abortion is for a "responsible" enough reason does not make sense to me, as to me the outcome is the same. 

Abortion itself is already highly regulated by both Federal and State governments.

Of course we are going to disagree on this because I think there should be universal healthcare, and abortion services should be part of that.

[Daverz]

I'm glad to see that everyone here now agrees that it is inappropriate for Government to be involved in human reproduction - I love this board.

You forgot the guy who wouldn't agree that the Renaissance was a good thing, let alone that nasty Enlightenment.

[Todd]

An inquisition about whether an abortion is for a "responsible" enough reason does not make sense to me, as to me the outcome is the same.

Who said anything about any kinds of test (or inquisition, if you will) as a prerequisite for providing abortion?  One of my points all along has been that abortion is the height of irresponsibility.  It is used as a form of birth control because the pregnancy to be terminated is inconvenient, and the poll data perfectly illustrates that.  If a person wants an abortion and the method to fund it is there, then that's that.  It doesn't mean the act is responsible.  A tax writeoff is the same thing as a taxpayer funded program, and I oppose it for the same reason.

[Daverz]

Who said anything about any kinds of test (or inquisition, if you will) as a prerequisite for providing abortion?

Should have made it clear I was talking about the regulation of any hypothetical government subsidy here.  (Hell, let's make it a low interest micro-loan, I'd be cool with that.)

One of my points all along has been that abortion is the height of irresponsibility.

The abortion itself is irresponsible, or the pregnancy?  I don't see the reasoning for the abortion itself being irresponsible.  The act that led to the pregnancy may be irresponsible (not using a condom, etc.), but once one has an unwanted pregnancy, how is abortion not a responsible way to deal with it? 

Or are you saying that the only responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to bring it to term?

By the way, in those statistics we've been bandying about, there's still no breakdown of how often an unwanted pregnancy is the result of contraceptive failure.  They are simply the reasons we would expect for why a pregnancy would be unwanted, and say nothing about the circumstances leading to the pregnancy (other than there was some fucking going on...in most cases).

[Teresa]

Aren't both abortion and gay marriage exactly the very same thing the conservatives dread the most? i.e government's involvement with people's everyday liberties?

You are confusing Republicans with Libertarians, Republican's want no or little government involvement in business, yet they want heavy government control of all of peoples lives.

I left the Democratic Party back in the early 1980's as they sold out to big corporate interest and adopted the idea of international business being supreme over individual countries, just like the Republican Party.  I was attracted to the Libertarian Party because of their stand on personal freedom, such as removing victimless crimes and decimalizing drugs and taxing their sales. 

I was a member of Libertarian Party for many years, but I left because I do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism.  Then I found my home with the Green Party which agrees with me in both economic and social issues. 

I live in Nevada and I believe Sharron Angle is the most dangerous person ever to enter politics, she has a jahad against individual freedom of every stripe.  Her absolute stand on abortion is HATEFUL and totally lacks compassion for incest and rape victims.  In addition she wants to do away with Social Security and Medicare.  Even though I am a green party member, I am voting for Democrat Harry Reid.  Sharron Angle is a modern day extreme right-wing fascist. 

http://www.sharronsundergroundbunker.com/

The best way is to adopt an escalating protection of fetuses as they develop. First trimester, no restriction, second trimester, states can impose medical necessity guidelines, third trimester, states can ban the procedure except to save the mother from grave risk to life and health.

This sounds very reasonable to me.

I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
Odd behavior, IMO.

I disagree there is nothing wrong with exposing EVIL when it presents it's ugly head, if you reread this thread you will see they also presented well-reasoned rational counter arguments which were much more effective than the irrational ranting's of the extreme right-wingers. 

I fail to see what possible public policy is served by forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term.  A pregnancy is not a trivial thing and can have serious health consequences.

I agree with this 100%, babies must wanted.  In additional young girls should not be giving birth especially if they are still in school.  This is evil to require them to do so.  If the pregnancy was with a loving partner and the woman is of legal age, she may decide to have the baby and give it up for adoption.  But to force a pregnancy of someone who was forceable raped or was a victim of incest is evil in the extreme!   Remember the health of the baby is based on the heath of the mother, so forcing a mother to have baby under such circumstances not only ruins her life but the life of the unborn child.  It is better to match a sperm cell and an egg from a loving couple instead. 
_________________________________________

As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines.  Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells. 

IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue.  Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women.  If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!

A rape victim DID NOT want to be raped!  A little girl didn't want to be a victim of incest.  To say that these girls and woman must spend nine months growing an offspring of the hateful monster that did this to them is INHUMAN and DETESTABLE.  They should have abortions and in the case of the little girl allowed to go back to school and complete her education.  They both will need sociological counseling to deal with trauma they were forced to endure.

Also one of the reasons I am all for gay marriage other than it gives gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples is it recognizes gay's great contribution to population control.  We need to get the Earth's population under control as the Earth only has so many resources and our population is WAY beyond it's maximum sustainable limit.  Both the Gay lifestyle and abortions can help relieve the burden of an overpopulated Earth.   Wars can also control population by killing our young boys, but I find war morally repugnant. 

[Josquin des Prez]

As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines.  Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.

You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.

As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines.

By whom? Since the dawn of time men have bent themselves backward to serve women. Millions of men have sacrificed themselves, often with their very lives, in order to protect and secure women (and children). Indeed, the natural role of men is to create the proper environment so that women may be free to nurture and support the race, free from the hardships and dangers inherent in securing a natural environment. Even after fifty years of artificial feminine endorsement, men are still doing all the dangerous jobs, they are still dying in wars in staggering numbers (while women in the military are generally kept away from the front lines, while still being paid the same. Nice deal huh?), and they are still expected to take on all the responsibilities, while being blamed for it at the same time. Somehow however, all this was simply not good enough for women. I wonder whether anything will ever be good enough for them.

[Gurn Blanston]

You are officially the scariest person on this forum.

Abso-freakin'-lutely! She left even you in the dust long ago. Honest to Christ, I might have to even turn to religion to save my soul after a year of reading The World According to Teresa.





----------------
Now playing:
Brautigam, Ronald - Hob 17 03 Arietta in Eb con 12 variazioni

[Teresa]

You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be much paperwork.

Coming from you that is just weird as you are the rudest extreme right-wing lunatic I have ever meet on any forum or even in person.  What made you such and mean and nasty person?

It makes me even more sad that you view us not only as baby-making machines but that you can force your will on what we do with our bodies.  Someday technology will catch up and all of your bigotry against women, the poor, the homeless, the sick will no longer matter.  Until then I hope you get help for both your personality and your EXTREMELY inhuman political views.

[Teresa]

Abso-freakin'-lutely! She left even you in the dust long ago. Honest to Christ, I might have to even turn to religion to save my soul after a year of reading The World According to Teresa.

Good idea I highly recommend Religion, unlike some I will not try to force mine on you, I will support whichever Religion you choose.  However it will help you see things from a more moral perspective. 

I take great offense at your highly offensive comments as all of my writing is HIGHLY moral, pro-freedom, pro-people with an aim to making a better society for all.   

[Philoctetes]

You forgot the guy who wouldn't agree that the Renaissance was a good thing, let alone that nasty Enlightenment.

Count me in. There was an inordinate amount of whites.

[Philoctetes]

Coming from you that is just weird as you are the rudest extreme right-wing lunatic I have ever meet on any forum or even in person.  What made you such and mean and nasty person?

Not to speak for him, but I don't think I'd really classify him as right-wing, nor extreme, and being rude and a lunatic are both pluses in my book.

[Josquin des Prez]

I just right-wing for the lulz.

[Philoctetes]

I just right-wing for the lulz.

Hence the rude and lunatic and pluses. 

[greg]

Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...

[Josquin des Prez]

Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...

Things were a lot better when fathers still knew best...

[greg]

Things were a lot better when fathers still knew best...

Luckily, my parents still do. 

[kishnevi]

You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.

By whom? Since the dawn of time men have bent themselves backward to serve women. Millions of men have sacrificed themselves, often with their very lives, in order to protect and secure women (and children). Indeed, the natural role of men is to create the proper environment so that women may be free to nurture and support the race, free from the hardships and dangers inherent in securing a natural environment. Even after fifty years of artificial feminine endorsement, men are still doing all the dangerous jobs, they are still dying in wars in staggering numbers (while women in the military are generally kept away from the front lines, while still being paid the same. Nice deal huh?), and they are still expected to take on all the responsibilities, while being blamed for it at the same time. Somehow however, all this was simply not good enough for women. I wonder whether anything will ever be good enough for them.

I'm wondering if Teresa has ever read Huxley's Brave New World.  It's a dystopia where babies are mass produced in factories, and words like "mother" and "father" have become obscenities. 

It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else.  It's mostly only in Euro American society in the last two hundred years or so that that pattern has changed.

[Josquin des Prez]

It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else.

Except that is not true. Watch this video, then try to revisit history with a new understanding of masculinity and femininity as two halves of a greater whole, each being unable to function without the other:

http://www.mensaction.net/video/AllThingsStartWithAPregnancy/

The idea that men and women are two separate entities and that their natural roles can be reversed on a whim is not only unnatural, but its an abomination, pure and simple. Living in western society has become one continuous struggle between our natural instincts and the forced need to believe that two plus two equals five, and all the cognitive dissonances are making people miserable. Ever wondered why primitive folks seem to be so much happier then we are, despite the physical harshness of their existence?

[Teresa]

I'm wondering if Teresa has ever read Huxley's Brave New World.  It's a dystopia where babies are mass produced in factories, and words like "mother" and "father" have become obscenities. 

It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else.  It's mostly only in Euro American society in the last two hundred years or so that that pattern has changed.

Yes I have read Brave New World as I am a big Science Fiction fan.  This and current scientific research is how I know the days of women enduring nine months of pregnancy are numbered. 

However I do not believe children should be raised by the state but have loving and caring parents trained in child rearing.  Yes I believe one should pass a child rearing course before allowed to have children.  Small babies and small children cannot defend themselves against abusive parents.  We need better ways to protect defenseless children.

You are correct, at least women now are somewhat valued for more than our bodies, and I'm glad I am living now and not 200 years ago!