Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
Well, let's have the talk about the founding concept of property and liberty with there of.
I'm pretty sure under the founding concept of property one's own right to autonomy was sacrosanct. Also, one's property extended to the concept of offspring. They were "of your body" and one's body was one's property.
The government had no right and no place to regulate body autonomy and your offspring fell under your own personal autonomy.
Infanticide was fairly common up until after the turn of the last century under this concept.
If rights begin at conception then exactly which rights? Gotta draw a line somewhere...
If we are channeling Locke, and Locke disagrees with my take here, then Locke was wrong. I can't go with you on this one hermano.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.
Guysms. My neighbor is unproductive and stupid, and worse, he gets on my nerves. Shall we leave it to the state legislature to let me make nature take its course? Does anybody need or want Fire Marshall Bill around? No and no. Let us not digress into discussions of social engineering when examining weighty matters of moral philosophy. We are serious men discussing a serious topic. The fate of the world's moral fiber rests in the outcome of these discussions.
Don't misunderstand me Creep. I think Roe v Wade has played a large part in our moral decay. Safe, legal and RARE, which in 92' was the DIM mantra no longer applies. Today they only talk safe and legal. I'm still in the RARE party.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.
Guysms. My neighbor is unproductive and stupid, and worse, he gets on my nerves. Shall we leave it to the state legislature to let me make nature take its course? Does anybody need or want Fire Marshall Bill around? No and no. Let us not digress into discussions of social engineering when examining weighty matters of moral philosophy. We are serious men discussing a serious topic. The fate of the world's moral fiber rests in the outcome of these discussions.
Don't misunderstand me Creep. I think Roe v Wade has played a large part in our moral decay. Safe, legal and RARE, which in 92' was the DIM mantra no longer applies. Today they only talk safe and legal. I'm still in the RARE party.
While entirely ignoring the fact that it has become much more rare.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
News alert: They have more children on purpose to collect more welfare, section 8, food stamps, WIC coupons, child care money. If they run their scam right they can pull down over 65K a year in some states. Stopped some Rolling Crips bangers one night at 3AM. Female in the car was 30 years old and had 9 social security cards in her wallet. I asked why she had them she said she had 8 kids. Only two last names were the same. She had to have the cards to collect the benefits.
My question was "where are your kids now it's 3AM?" she replied "I don't know".
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
News alert: They have more children on purpose to collect more welfare, section 8, food stamps, WIC coupons, child care money. If they run their scam right they can pull down over 65K a year in some states. Stopped some Rolling Crips bangers one night at 3AM. Female in the car was 30 years old and had 9 social security cards in her wallet. I asked why she had them she said she had 8 kids. Only two last names were the same. She had to have the cards to collect the benefits.
My question was "where are your kids now it's 3AM?" she replied "I don't know".
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.
Guysms. My neighbor is unproductive and stupid, and worse, he gets on my nerves. Shall we leave it to the state legislature to let me make nature take its course? Does anybody need or want Fire Marshall Bill around? No and no. Let us not digress into discussions of social engineering when examining weighty matters of moral philosophy. We are serious men discussing a serious topic. The fate of the world's moral fiber rests in the outcome of these discussions.
Don't misunderstand me Creep. I think Roe v Wade has played a large part in our moral decay. Safe, legal and RARE, which in 92' was the DIM mantra no longer applies. Today they only talk safe and legal. I'm still in the RARE party.
While entirely ignoring the fact that it has become much more rare.
Your side doesn’t even mutter rare anymore. Why is that? Ghoul.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.
Guysms. My neighbor is unproductive and stupid, and worse, he gets on my nerves. Shall we leave it to the state legislature to let me make nature take its course? Does anybody need or want Fire Marshall Bill around? No and no. Let us not digress into discussions of social engineering when examining weighty matters of moral philosophy. We are serious men discussing a serious topic. The fate of the world's moral fiber rests in the outcome of these discussions.
Don't misunderstand me Creep. I think Roe v Wade has played a large part in our moral decay. Safe, legal and RARE, which in 92' was the DIM mantra no longer applies. Today they only talk safe and legal. I'm still in the RARE party.
I'm sorry, I really am, but I can't abide by "Rare". You can't countenance murder as long as it's rare. Of course it's always going to happen anyway, but that doesn't make it right. I've been clear here: the person didn't rape its host, didn't put the host's health in jeopardy, didn't cause the incest and wasn't put in the position to inconvenience the host for 9 mos. - the host and/or someone else did those things.
So, again, zero tolerance. Zero circumstances ever to justify the denial of life to an innocent bystander. If you apply all the arguments to people walking and breathing on the earth today, they (the arguments) all fail. Miserably. There is no line. People have been trying to draw it forever.
So of course there are social and other compelling reasons to wish it weren't so. That doesn't make it ok. I hate to say it: if you're in the "rare" or "for good reason" or "health of the mother" or "but, but rape" crowd, you may as well cross the street and join the other protest.
Again, I'm sorry. I know it's a tuff issue. But I'm afraid the Papists have had the last word on this one.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.
Guysms. My neighbor is unproductive and stupid, and worse, he gets on my nerves. Shall we leave it to the state legislature to let me make nature take its course? Does anybody need or want Fire Marshall Bill around? No and no. Let us not digress into discussions of social engineering when examining weighty matters of moral philosophy. We are serious men discussing a serious topic. The fate of the world's moral fiber rests in the outcome of these discussions.
Don't misunderstand me Creep. I think Roe v Wade has played a large part in our moral decay. Safe, legal and RARE, which in 92' was the DIM mantra no longer applies. Today they only talk safe and legal. I'm still in the RARE party.
While entirely ignoring the fact that it has become much more rare.
Your side doesn’t even mutter rare anymore. Why is that? Ghoul.
Speaking for myself, I don't really care. It's a silly sentiment.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
Turd, mi hermano: we are talking about one of the most basic moral principles that human beings have to weigh: the right to life and the few exceptions when we? can override that right. Self-defense and defense of property and persons in limited circumstances, and war, and that's about it as I recall. We cannot parse the infinite factual cum dumping circumstances of the masses. This is ivory tower ese. This is Plato's academy ( @YellowSnow ).
If we do the right thing and outlaw what should be blanketly outlawed, then we're going to need to do something about the welfare state or the homeless camps are going to be a detail compared to what'll be waiting for us.
Dudes will start using jimmy hats or get vasectomies or whatever. But they are part of the person-making process. Can't let them cut and run. Trap or no trap, nobody forced anybody to do anything. He was there, did what he did, and now he has to be held to account.
I can so no alternative, but am all ears. Hey, I had three and took care of mine. That's what real men do.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
Turd, mi hermano: we are talking about one of the most basic moral principles that human beings have to weigh: the right to life and the few exceptions when we? can override that right. Self-defense and defense of property and persons in limited circumstances, and war, and that's about it as I recall. We cannot parse the infinite factual cum dumping circumstances of the masses. This is ivory tower ese. This is Plato's academy ( @YellowSnow ).
If we do the right thing and outlaw what should be blanketly outlawed, then we're going to need to do something about the welfare state or the homeless camps are going to be a detail compared to what'll be waiting for us.
Dudes will start using jimmy hats or get vasectomies or whatever. But they are part of the person-making process. Can't let them cut and run. Trap or no trap, nobody forced anybody to do anything. He was there, did what he did, and now he has to be held to account.
I can so no alternative, but am all ears. Hey, I had three and took care of mine. That's what real men do.
It happened to my former brother-in-law by some crazy woman in L.A. He took responsibility and worked with the grandparents to raise the kid in the absence of the crazy witch who revolved between insane asylums, jails and crackhouses the entire kid's childhood.
Had it not been for wealthy grandparents, the kid's life would've been impoverished and shitty, despite her dad being a very decent guy.
These are the rarest of cases, however, when things work out okay for the kid and the trapped father.
I personally agree that a "termination" is a taking of a human life.
But I'm also wise enough to know 2/3 of the country will gladly look the other way and allow or support it, in case it happens to them or in their family.
Like war, the U.S. population will accept a significant amount of casualties to protect and defend their own asses.
Reality trumps Morality on this one. Take the L and move on.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
Turd, mi hermano: we are talking about one of the most basic moral principles that human beings have to weigh: the right to life and the few exceptions when we? can override that right. Self-defense and defense of property and persons in limited circumstances, and war, and that's about it as I recall. We cannot parse the infinite factual cum dumping circumstances of the masses. This is ivory tower ese. This is Plato's academy ( @YellowSnow ).
If we do the right thing and outlaw what should be blanketly outlawed, then we're going to need to do something about the welfare state or the homeless camps are going to be a detail compared to what'll be waiting for us.
Dudes will start using jimmy hats or get vasectomies or whatever. But they are part of the person-making process. Can't let them cut and run. Trap or no trap, nobody forced anybody to do anything. He was there, did what he did, and now he has to be held to account.
I can so no alternative, but am all ears. Hey, I had three and took care of mine. That's what real men do.
It happened to my former brother-in-law by some crazy woman in L.A. He took responsibility and worked with the grandparents to raise the kid in the absence of the crazy witch who revolved between insane asylums, jails and crackhouses the entire kid's childhood.
Had it not been for wealthy grandparents, the kid's life would've been impoverished and shitty, despite her dad being a very decent guy.
These are the rarest of cases, however, when things work out okay for the kid and the trapped father.
Good for him. He did the right thing. The hard thing, but the right thing.
I personally agree that a "termination" is a taking of a human life. Good
But I'm also wise enough to know 2/3 of the country will gladly look the other way and allow or support it, in case it happens to them or in their family. Agreed, but doesn't matter.
Like war, the U.S. population will accept a significant amount of casualties to protect and defend their own asses. Agreed but doesn't matter.
Reality trumps Morality on this one. Never. Take the L and move on. When one is on the side of the righteous, it's never a L. With probably closing in on100 responses on this topic, mostly supportive but qualified, I'm like the 2001 Canes: undefeated.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Comments
My question was "where are your kids now it's 3AM?" she replied "I don't know".
So, again, zero tolerance. Zero circumstances ever to justify the denial of life to an innocent bystander. If you apply all the arguments to people walking and breathing on the earth today, they (the arguments) all fail. Miserably. There is no line. People have been trying to draw it forever.
So of course there are social and other compelling reasons to wish it weren't so. That doesn't make it ok. I hate to say it: if you're in the "rare" or "for good reason" or "health of the mother" or "but, but rape" crowd, you may as well cross the street and join the other protest.
Again, I'm sorry. I know it's a tuff issue. But I'm afraid the Papists have had the last word on this one.
If we do the right thing and outlaw what should be blanketly outlawed, then we're going to need to do something about the welfare state or the homeless camps are going to be a detail compared to what'll be waiting for us.
Dudes will start using jimmy hats or get vasectomies or whatever. But they are part of the person-making process. Can't let them cut and run. Trap or no trap, nobody forced anybody to do anything. He was there, did what he did, and now he has to be held to account.
I can so no alternative, but am all ears. Hey, I had three and took care of mine. That's what real men do.
Wine and Cheese bored...You mean we have ANOTHER GAY sub-chapter in this org?
Yes. Faggot bailed on it. He's too busy and too much of a VIP. He now denies or "doesn't remember" recruiting me (and others) for it.
We have a framed pic of our twins as embryos. That’s when their lives started. That’s where I’m at.
Had it not been for wealthy grandparents, the kid's life would've been impoverished and shitty, despite her dad being a very decent guy.
These are the rarest of cases, however, when things work out okay for the kid and the trapped father.
I personally agree that a "termination" is a taking of a human life.
But I'm also wise enough to know 2/3 of the country will gladly look the other way and allow or support it, in case it happens to them or in their family.
Like war, the U.S. population will accept a significant amount of casualties to protect and defend their own asses.
Reality trumps Morality on this one. Take the L and move on.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.