Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Der Mike View Post
    You act as if being the biological parent is needed to force child support to be paid.

    It is not. A man can be legally forced to do so even if the kid isn't his.
    I know I've heard recently about a case where a man had been paying support for some time and wanted to stop when the paternity test showed that he wasn't the bio-dad. Wasn't it back support that he was still being forced to pay? I don't know what the reasoning or law was behind that ruling, though. What about going forward?

    Jan
    Last edited by Jan; 06-05-2009, 12:57 PM.
    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

    Comment


    • Fair enough.
      Do you oppose forcing men to pay child support? Men should have the identical right to walk away from their responsibility that women have, shouldn't they?
      Mike made the point that I was going to make, so I will expand on it. Having the right to "choose" is very vague. If one has the right to choose do they have the right to choose to enter someone's home and check their stuff out? To rape someone because they are feeling frisky? To eat another human being because they are hungry?

      Choice isn't the issue. Without even commenting on abortion, one can point out that this issue is about abortion. Supporters need to say that they support abortion. The argument can go from there.
      Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dr Maturin View Post
        Choice isn't the issue. Without even commenting on abortion, one can point out that this issue is about abortion. Supporters need to say that they support abortion. The argument can go from there.
        No argument here. I have no problem at all saying clearly that I'm pro-abortion.

        You bring up an interesting side point, though. We choose everything we do. We don't necessarily choose everything that happens to us but we do choose our own actions even if we don't always acknowledge that.

        Jan
        "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

        Comment


        • Hey guys, I've very much stayed out of this discussion...but there's someone really cool running for Congress on the Republican ticket out in California. And will be supported by the national party if he can raise enough money by June 30th. Any bit helps (only for american citizens!).

          The leading voice in Hispanic Science Fiction.


          Thanks!
          Flying Sparks Web Comic - A Hero and Villain In Love. Updates on Wednesdays
          True Believer Reviews: Comic Reviews and Interviews on Wednesdays and Fridays - Or Your Money Back!

          Comment


          • Hmmm...Good thing you've already established yourself here, Jon...

            And while Jon and I disagree on lots and lots of things (okay, fine, almost everything), he's an outstanding young man who'll genuinely fight for what he believes in. Congress could do much worse.

            Jan
            "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

            Comment


            • A man can be legally forced to do so even if the kid isn't his.
              And that's about the most outragious verdict concerning child support I've ever heard of.

              @Dr. M:
              No prob here. I'm pro-abortion, period.
              And all other "choices" you mentioned are about violating other persons' rights. Abortion is NOT. So you're basically comparing apples to oranges here.
              What's up Drakh?

              Comment


              • As i've stated before, I am pro-life.

                While I can understand a pro-abortion persons logic in as far as "well its your body so why not?" I just have difficulty in getting my head around why someone would want to go to such extreme lengths to abort a potentially healthy child. Yeah a clump of cells, but that clump of cells has the potential to be the person that cures cancer, or the person who ends world poverty.


                Quote: I love Lyta.
                QUOTE"But to get into the "murder" thingy anyways:
                Saying that a predicted extreme disability of the child is a sufficient reason for abortion is -not just a bit- hippocritical,"NO!" don't you think? Does a disabled child not have the same right to live as a healthy one? "NOT ALWAYS" Isn't it "murder" of an unborn child (as "pro-life"rs like to call it) no matter whether the child will be disabled or not? "IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES"
                I find it highly funny that someone who calls himself pro-life states that the choice to abort is abhorent but the choice to not have a disabled child is legitimate (Disclaimer: No personal attack here - just pointing out that people's "pro-life" attitude only goes so far)."



                Wow - an insult - i'm flattered. All helps this discussion.

                "QUALITY OF LIFE"

                You have never been in this position have you? I have.

                I have seen things which would make your Shit stand on end. Horrible things you could not possibly imagine. It altered my perception of these things. I can only use our case as an example, but also what was happening while we were in hospital with our daughter changed everything.

                We have been in the presence of couples who have had to make that decision while our daughter was in hospital in the cot alongside - the child would have been very VERY disabled when born with no quality of life - so the baby was born, life support was turned off and the parents were allowed to cuddle their little boy until he died. We were there, you were not. I also know a couple who's baby was aborted at 24 weeks because its internal organs were missing.

                If my daughter was diagnosed as disabled IN THE WOMB, then myself and my wife would have had to discuss this. However my daughter was not diagnosed until she was over 12 months old. By then the decision is made.

                My opinion stands. True it may seem strange to you but in my mind Parents should have the choice if disability (or danger to the mother) is detected prior to birth. If not, no choice at all.

                Its an opinion - you dont have to agree.
                Last edited by circularREASON; 06-08-2009, 09:11 AM.
                Duracell Bunny is arrested and charged with BATTERY!!

                Comment


                • I agree completely that quality of life is extremely important. In fact that's a major factor when I discuss the right to die. Where I think that an issue would arise is in drawing the parameters whereby quality of life is determined. I've known many severly mentally handicapped people who were very happy. Do they have a sufficiently good quality of life even though there's no hope of them ever becoming contributing citizens and would require care all their lives? How do you determine who even gets to decide? It's a tough question.

                  Can you explain what you mean about this part of your post, CR?:

                  While I can understand a pro-abortion persons logic in as far as "well its your body so why not?" I just have difficulty in getting my head around why someone would want to go to such extreme lengths to abort a child.
                  What extreme lengths are you talking about?

                  Regarding this part:

                  My opinion stands. True it may seem strange to you but in my mind Parents should have the choice if disability (or danger to the mother) is detected prior to birth. If not, no choice at all.
                  I'm happy that I don't see that ever coming to pass because it would be enough to send me working to establish an underground railroad to help women get abortions.

                  Jan
                  "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                  Comment


                  • I don't understand how a woman can be in a position where she feels the need to abort anything. Life (or quality of) should be sacred should it not? Even in its potential (not realised) state.

                    Also to clarify. "extreme measures"

                    As far as i'm aware Abortion is allowed upto 20-22 weeks gestation. Dunno bout the US.

                    Ever seen a child that far on? They are perfect in every way (apart from organ development). Such beautiful creatures.
                    Duracell Bunny is arrested and charged with BATTERY!!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by circularREASON View Post
                      I don't understand how a woman can be in a position where she feels the need to abort anything. Life (or quality of) should be sacred should it not? Even in its potential (not realised) state.
                      All I can say without revealing far too much on a personal level is that nobody and nothing has the right to infringe on *my* quality of life so, no, I guess I don't believe that. I also don't believe that 'potential' should be equated with 'achieved'.

                      Also to clarify. "extreme measures"

                      As far as i'm aware Abortion is allowed upto 20-22 weeks gestation. Dunno bout the US.

                      Ever seen a child that far on? They are perfect in every way (apart from organ development). Such beautiful creatures.
                      As far as I'm concerned, if there's no viability there's no child yet. I don't care what it looks like, as long as it's biologically indistinguishable from a fish, there's no way I'd concede that it's human.

                      Jan
                      "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                      Comment


                      • What's "viable?"

                        A "viable pregnancy" (as opposed to a "viable fetus) is commonly defined by doctors as one where there are no indicators of miscarriage and there is a reasonable expectation that the pregnancy will result in the birth of a live infant. Which means, most of them.

                        How is an infant any more viable than a fetus? Leave either alone, inside the mother or not, and it's gonna die.

                        (Well, there's one difference - a healthy infant can die through neglect - a healthy fetus has to be terminated more directly.)

                        What about a kangaroo joey? Is that viable? It's already been born... does not being "viable" mean it's okay to kill them?

                        How about when some smartass scientist invents an artificial womb? Then what will viability mean?

                        Not a particularly viable defining point, if you ask me.
                        "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid." -- Quantum Crook, Casey and Andy Webcomic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doom Shepherd View Post
                          What's "viable?"
                          Simple. It's viable if the fetus can survive outside of the mother's body without heroic medical intervention. Until that point, it's a parasite, not a child.

                          Kangaroos aren't part of the discussion.

                          We can worry about the uterine replicator when it happens.

                          Jan
                          "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jan View Post
                            I don't care what it looks like, as long as it's biologically indistinguishable from a fish, there's no way I'd concede that it's human.
                            Jan

                            It's biologically distinguishable from a fish at the instant of conception... wrong chromosomes and genes.
                            "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid." -- Quantum Crook, Casey and Andy Webcomic

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jan View Post
                              Simple. It's viable if the fetus can survive outside of the mother's body without heroic medical intervention.
                              Ah, we're adding adjectives. "heroic medical" now. Well, that helps. You should have used those to start with, though. Now it just seems like you're moving goalposts because your first definition failed.

                              Until that point, it's a parasite, not a child.
                              Maybe we can call it 3/5ths of a person. Seems that compromise worked once before...

                              Kangaroos aren't part of the discussion.
                              Cool, I'll tell PeTA.

                              We can worry about the uterine replicator when it happens.
                              Ex post facto laws don't change the rightness or wrongness of things.


                              "Whole generations of disposable people..." -- Guinan
                              "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid." -- Quantum Crook, Casey and Andy Webcomic

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doom Shepherd View Post
                                Ah, we're adding adjectives. "heroic medical" now. Well, that helps. You should have used those to start with, though. Now it just seems like you're moving goalposts because your first definition failed.
                                Hardly. from Dictionary.com, when I looked up the word "viable":
                                b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
                                Jan
                                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X