< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro Abortion NOT Pro Choice

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
27 June 2019 16:38
 

You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying, but it doesn’t change that truth.

So far in this thread the ONLY aspect of the nanny state that you are proposing is using the government to control women’s reproduction.  Prove me wrong and tell me how you will apply the exact same principles you’ve espoused, but tell me how they will apply to wealthy men.  Prove me wrong.  It should be really simple to do so, if you also propose nanny state tactics that apply to wealthy men, that would prove that I am misrepresenting you.

As long as you are ONLY applying your nanny state to poor women, then my analysis of you is correct.  Feel free to show everyone how I’m mistaken.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
29 June 2019 14:07
 

Woman refuses to pay teen’s tuition if she doesn’t terminate her pregnancy

A woman has revealed that she is refusing to pay for her teenage stepdaughter’s pricey private school tuition now that she’s pregnant.

. . .

‘My husband was a teen dad, we will refer to his daughter as An. An’s mom, grandma and [great]-grandma were all teen moms. An is now 16 years old, and pregnant,’ she wrote.

The stepmother said that when An turned 14 years old, she wanted to move in with them an attend high school in the big city that they live in.

They enrolled her in a ‘fancy’ private school because the local public high school had a ‘terrible’ reputation, and the Reddit user has been paying roughly 75 per cent of the tuition.

‘She has always been set that she wanted to be an economist, and that she wanted to move to another country to pursue her dream,’ she said of her stepdaughter. ‘I have been separating some money for this purpose, too.

‘My husband and I came to an agreement that I would also help her dream to come true, but I would cease any economic help towards her tuition if she became a teen mom (An did NOT know this) and he agreed.’

. . .

However, the woman said An’s mother and grandmother are both ‘ecstatic’ and think they can make teen pregnancy better for her than it was for them.

‘I think they’re absolute loonies; I bet they don’t even have the money to pay for the hospital when the time comes,’ she said. ‘I believe they think we will pay for all of the unborn child’s costs.

‘I am dead serious about stopping tuition and using the money I’ve been saving in other stuff if An decides to carry on with the pregnancy,’ she added.

Right on, Sister!

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
29 June 2019 14:17
 
Garret - 27 June 2019 04:38 PM

You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying, but it doesn’t change that truth.

So far in this thread the ONLY aspect of the nanny state that you are proposing is using the government to control women’s reproduction.  Prove me wrong and tell me how you will apply the exact same principles you’ve espoused, but tell me how they will apply to wealthy men.  Prove me wrong.  It should be really simple to do so, if you also propose nanny state tactics that apply to wealthy men, that would prove that I am misrepresenting you.

As long as you are ONLY applying your nanny state to poor women, then my analysis of you is correct.  Feel free to show everyone how I’m mistaken.

“Everyone?” Is that how you refer to yourself? “We” wasn’t “illeistic” enough for you? Or do you imagine yourself up on a stage, impressing “everyone” in the peanut gallery with your shitty analogies and hyperbole?

News flash, Bucko: no one gives a shit. Luckily for you and your strawman argument.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
29 June 2019 19:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 29 June 2019 02:07 PM

Woman refuses to pay teen’s tuition if she doesn’t terminate her pregnancy

A woman has revealed that she is refusing to pay for her teenage stepdaughter’s pricey private school tuition now that she’s pregnant.

. . .

‘My husband was a teen dad, we will refer to his daughter as An. An’s mom, grandma and [great]-grandma were all teen moms. An is now 16 years old, and pregnant,’ she wrote.

The stepmother said that when An turned 14 years old, she wanted to move in with them an attend high school in the big city that they live in.

They enrolled her in a ‘fancy’ private school because the local public high school had a ‘terrible’ reputation, and the Reddit user has been paying roughly 75 per cent of the tuition.

‘She has always been set that she wanted to be an economist, and that she wanted to move to another country to pursue her dream,’ she said of her stepdaughter. ‘I have been separating some money for this purpose, too.

‘My husband and I came to an agreement that I would also help her dream to come true, but I would cease any economic help towards her tuition if she became a teen mom (An did NOT know this) and he agreed.’

. . .

However, the woman said An’s mother and grandmother are both ‘ecstatic’ and think they can make teen pregnancy better for her than it was for them.

‘I think they’re absolute loonies; I bet they don’t even have the money to pay for the hospital when the time comes,’ she said. ‘I believe they think we will pay for all of the unborn child’s costs.

‘I am dead serious about stopping tuition and using the money I’ve been saving in other stuff if An decides to carry on with the pregnancy,’ she added.

Right on, Sister!

Anyone with a masters in social work (at least in the U.S.) has been thoroughly schooled in the most effective techniques—i.e., “best practices”—that will allow her/him to coerce his/her clients into whatever behavioral tendencies that are currently acceptable to the social worker working. I’m using “coerce” in its literal sense.

[Edit—in case I’m not clear: I agree with ASD’s central point here. Maybe I shouldn’t admit to such an abhorrence.]

[ Edited: 29 June 2019 20:16 by nonverbal]
 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
29 June 2019 21:49
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 29 June 2019 02:17 PM
Garret - 27 June 2019 04:38 PM

You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying, but it doesn’t change that truth.

So far in this thread the ONLY aspect of the nanny state that you are proposing is using the government to control women’s reproduction.  Prove me wrong and tell me how you will apply the exact same principles you’ve espoused, but tell me how they will apply to wealthy men.  Prove me wrong.  It should be really simple to do so, if you also propose nanny state tactics that apply to wealthy men, that would prove that I am misrepresenting you.

As long as you are ONLY applying your nanny state to poor women, then my analysis of you is correct.  Feel free to show everyone how I’m mistaken.

“Everyone?” Is that how you refer to yourself? “We” wasn’t “illeistic” enough for you? Or do you imagine yourself up on a stage, impressing “everyone” in the peanut gallery with your shitty analogies and hyperbole?

News flash, Bucko: no one gives a shit. Luckily for you and your strawman argument.

And with that, you’ve become boring.

You made it about me by 1) your inability to read (I didn’t refer to myself in the third person) and then 2) making it insults.  If that’s all you’ve got, I’ll spend my time responding to other people.

[ Edited: 29 June 2019 21:54 by Garret]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
30 June 2019 10:04
 
Garret - 29 June 2019 09:49 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 29 June 2019 02:17 PM
Garret - 27 June 2019 04:38 PM

You can refuse to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying, but it doesn’t change that truth.

So far in this thread the ONLY aspect of the nanny state that you are proposing is using the government to control women’s reproduction.  Prove me wrong and tell me how you will apply the exact same principles you’ve espoused, but tell me how they will apply to wealthy men.  Prove me wrong.  It should be really simple to do so, if you also propose nanny state tactics that apply to wealthy men, that would prove that I am misrepresenting you.

As long as you are ONLY applying your nanny state to poor women, then my analysis of you is correct.  Feel free to show everyone how I’m mistaken.

“Everyone?” Is that how you refer to yourself? “We” wasn’t “illeistic” enough for you? Or do you imagine yourself up on a stage, impressing “everyone” in the peanut gallery with your shitty analogies and hyperbole?

News flash, Bucko: no one gives a shit. Luckily for you and your strawman argument.

And with that, you’ve become boring.

You made it about me by 1) your inability to read (I didn’t refer to myself in the third person) and then 2) making it insults.  If that’s all you’ve got, I’ll spend my time responding to other people.

I’m crushed.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
30 June 2019 10:20
 
nonverbal - 29 June 2019 07:16 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 29 June 2019 02:07 PM

Woman refuses to pay teen’s tuition if she doesn’t terminate her pregnancy

A woman has revealed that she is refusing to pay for her teenage stepdaughter’s pricey private school tuition now that she’s pregnant.

. . .

‘My husband was a teen dad, we will refer to his daughter as An. An’s mom, grandma and [great]-grandma were all teen moms. An is now 16 years old, and pregnant,’ she wrote.

The stepmother said that when An turned 14 years old, she wanted to move in with them an attend high school in the big city that they live in.

They enrolled her in a ‘fancy’ private school because the local public high school had a ‘terrible’ reputation, and the Reddit user has been paying roughly 75 per cent of the tuition.

‘She has always been set that she wanted to be an economist, and that she wanted to move to another country to pursue her dream,’ she said of her stepdaughter. ‘I have been separating some money for this purpose, too.

‘My husband and I came to an agreement that I would also help her dream to come true, but I would cease any economic help towards her tuition if she became a teen mom (An did NOT know this) and he agreed.’

. . .

However, the woman said An’s mother and grandmother are both ‘ecstatic’ and think they can make teen pregnancy better for her than it was for them.

‘I think they’re absolute loonies; I bet they don’t even have the money to pay for the hospital when the time comes,’ she said. ‘I believe they think we will pay for all of the unborn child’s costs.

‘I am dead serious about stopping tuition and using the money I’ve been saving in other stuff if An decides to carry on with the pregnancy,’ she added.

Right on, Sister!

Anyone with a masters in social work (at least in the U.S.) has been thoroughly schooled in the most effective techniques—i.e., “best practices”—that will allow her/him to coerce his/her clients into whatever behavioral tendencies that are currently acceptable to the social worker working. I’m using “coerce” in its literal sense.

[Edit—in case I’m not clear: I agree with ASD’s central point here. Maybe I shouldn’t admit to such an abhorrence.]

You hit the nail on the head with your “coerce” comment. But why is it abhorrent to coerce someone into doing something that is not only in society’s best interest, but in their own? Is it also abhorrent to coerce homeless drug addicts and lunatics into rehab or treatment?

Does the abhorrence lie in the specific action? In other words, is coercing poor pregnant women into having abortions really like shooting someone dead for not giving up their property, or forcibly extracting living people’s organs? (Was I unfair to Garret?) Or does it stem from the slippery slope argument, i.e., that coercing poor women into having abortions will inevitably lead to those things?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 June 2019 11:56
 

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 June 2019 12:18
 
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 11:56 AM

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

But is it criminally forceful to coerce someone into medical treatment who relies on state assistance in order to survive, when his/her behavior resembles con artistry on some level? I ask this because shooting someone is usually considered a criminal action.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 June 2019 13:25
 

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2019 14:19
 
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 01:25 PM

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

The few dollars (or cents?) of any individual’s taxes that may help such a person does not warrant such a harsh removal of autonomy.
In almost any other case, the removal of personal autonomy is either a crime, or requires significant legal precedent to accomplish.

Again, this seems to be a fundamental problem in the US.
People want to control every cent of their tax deductions, and get all up-in-arms if there is a possibility that any minuscule portion of ‘their’ tax dollars get used to help people they disprove of.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3405
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
30 June 2019 14:53
 

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 June 2019 15:41
 
Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

Then California’s got a bunch of nazis doing their social work.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2019 16:03
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 03:41 PM
Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

Then California’s got a bunch of nazis doing their social work.

If people are being sterilized against their will, and they are compos mentis, then that’s a bad thing.
If the people are non compos mentis, then there is probably a power of attorney or proxy consent being distributed for those cases.  I don’t know the specifics of california law about autonomy and informed consent, but Bruce probably has the legal chutzpah to help inform us…

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3405
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
30 June 2019 16:09
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 03:41 PM
Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

Then California’s got a bunch of nazis doing their social work.

???

As far as I know, Californian social workers do the same type of work as where I live.  They are the ones who pick up the pieces and care for those born into difficult situations.  What is often needed is more social workers and more money spent on programs aimed at addressing the initial problems (e.g. poverty, unplanned pregnancies, affordable housing, drug rehab, etc.), rather than laws or policies that lack compassion or understanding.

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›