A fetus can't survive without it's mom, and a burden on society can't survive without welfare. At least one of them is through no fault of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gas
Printable View
A fetus can't survive without it's mom, and a burden on society can't survive without welfare. At least one of them is through no fault of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gas
Science attached consequences to it. If you want to avoid those consequences, get pills or an operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
ITT: Slut-shaming.
What about women that can't take birth control pills, and don't want to be infertile because maybe the future?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Condoms, sponges, etc. I'd also put tax-funded hysterectomies well before abortions. Permanent solutions ftw.
edit: In fact, now that we're well down the path of extremity, make hysterectomies and vasectomy mandatory to get welfare checks.
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...igy19/Shaq.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Allright! Eugenics for the poor! People that need welfare will still be born though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Although it's curious that you're against abortion unless rape or incest or life of mother (all presumably based on what you said) which means that the voluntarity of the conception is more important to you than the life of the kid. The few who are against abortion 100% actually have a superior stance than you and others who think this way because they are not hung up on the voluntarity of the sex.
You can act all pro kid and giving every kid a chance then why not force rape victims to carry to term? Don't rape babies deserve that 1 first chance (regardless of how lousy the chance is)?
The end result is that regardless of the myriad of reasons why a woman would want to not carry a baby to term you seem fine sentencing her to the 9 months of pain, the delivery, the medical bills, the permanent changes to her body, dealing with custody rights/battles, dealing with adoption hassles etc. etc. simply because she zigged when she shoulda zagged. The woman who was raped doesn't want to deliver, the woman who chose to have sex doesn't want to deliver. There is actually no real difference between to the two of them after conception, only the voluntarity of the sex and why should that matter so much? Neither wants to have a kid for one of a million possible reasons which are the mother's concern and none of ours.
The real kicker is is that there is NO way to force basically any of this on the father. You can throw him in jail for being a dead beat but that still doesn't help the mother, garnish his wages (if he really earns much), he didn't deal with the birth and cannot really be forced into any of the consequences of the sex. He can get off scott free while the woman is stuck with a permanent bill.
In the end people with your view are guilty of the most prolific misogynist violence forced on women. So punish women for having sex? Got it.
Edit: Just remember, each abortion could mean one less future welfare parasite. Also remember ligation and vasectomy is not 100% contraceptive either. Also, that the morality of sex and abortion has been dictated by religion, generally male run enterprises, for a bazillion years. Women ought to have full say in their side of it as well.
I don't think you're aware what a hysterectomy does to a woman's body. It's not for birth control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, the irreversible ripping out of a uterus is not a common method of birth control these days, but it's not as if Yoshi has ever let obsolescence or extremism get in the way of his politics before.
No they are not. My mother and sister both had one. Stop talking out of your ass Yoshi.